4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Potassium concentration differences in the vitreous humour from the two eyes revisited by microanalysis with capillary electrophoresis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 924, Issue 1-2, Pages 493-498

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(01)00713-0

Keywords

forensic analysis; potassium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a study of the variability of potassium concentrations in the vitreous humour of the two eyes of the same body at identical postmortem interval. The study was carried out by collecting microsample amounts (50 mul) of vitreous humour and by using an original method of capillary electrophoresis with indirect detection. The electrophoretic separations were carried out in a pH 4.5 running buffer composed of 5 mmol/l imidazole, 5 mmol/l 18-crown-6 ether and 6 mmol/l alpha -hydroxybutyric acid. Detection was by indirect UV absorption at 214 nm. Vitreous humour samples were collected from 57 medico-legal autopsies or external examinations of cases of sudden natural or violent deaths. All samples prior to analysis were diluted 1:20 with a 40 mug/ml aqueous solution of barium, the used internal standard, and finally injected by nitrogen pressure. The mean concentrations of potassium measured in the two eyes of all the cases included in the present study ranged from 4.1 to 23.5 mmol/l with the postmortem interval values varying from 7 to 144 h. A highly significant (P <0.0001) linear correlation was found between these two parameters as described by the equation: y=0.1698x+2.3587, r=0.89. The intra-eye variability of potassium concentrations was low with an average RSD of 3.89% (+/-1.83 SD) (48 eyes, five samples per eye). No statistically significant difference was found between the potassium concentrations in the two eyes of the same subject in a group of 24 cases, excepting a single case. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available