Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of paramagnetic and chemical methods for the determination of oxygen

  • Published:
Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie einschließlich Arbeitsphysiologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

50 comparisons between paramagnetic (Beckman E-2) and chemical (Lloyd-Haldane) methods for the determination of oxygen have been carried out under the pressures of routine metabolic work. The discrepancies between duplicate Lloyd-Haldane analyses showed a skewed distribution. The median and mode were both ±0.01 %, but the ‘standard deviation’ exceeded ±0.05%. Mean values for the oxygen concentration of poorly duplicated results exceeded the corresponding Beckman results, and were thought due to undetected leakage. Eliminating the 20 comparisons where replication of chemical analyses was poorer than ±0.02 %, the discrepancy between Beckman and Lloyd-Haldane analyses showed a standard deviation of ±0.047%; this error was largely attributable to the Beckman apparatus. The possible accuracy of the chemical method exceeds that of the paramagnetic, but the greater consistency of physical analysis makes it more suitable for routine work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Consolazio, C. F., R. E. Johnson, andL. J. Pecora: Physiological measurements of metabolic functions in man. New York: McGraw Hill 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cotes, J. E., andR. F. Woolmer: A comparison between twenty-seven laboratories of the results of analysis of an expired gas sample. J. Physiol. (Lond.)163, 36–37 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Douglas, C. G., andJ. G. Priestley: Human physiology: A practical course. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Claredon Press 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lloyd, B. B.: A development of Haldane's gas analysis apparatus. J. Physiol. (Lond.)143, 5 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pauling, L., R. E. Wood, andJ. H. Sturdivant: An instrument for determining the partial pressure of oxygen in a gas. J. Amer. chem. Soc.68, 795–798 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Renbourne, E. T., andJ. F. McK. Ellison: Some errors in gas analysis using the Haldane apparatus. J. Hyg. (Lond.)48, 239–256 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Strydom, N. B., H. M. Cook, H. D. Miller, andP. Winer: Errors in respiratory gas analysis. A comparison of the Haldane and Pauling gas analysers. Int. Z. angew. Physiol.21, 13–26 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiological, Hygiene School of Hygiene, University of Toronto, Canada

    R. J. Shephard

Authors
  1. R. J. Shephard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shephard, R.J. A comparison of paramagnetic and chemical methods for the determination of oxygen. Int. Z. Angew. Physiol. Einschl. Arbeitsphysiol. 22, 279–284 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00698279

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00698279

Keywords

Search

Navigation