4.6 Article

Development and validation of methods for the determination of copper and iron in serum of dogs with canine visceral Leishmaniasis using multivariate optimization and GF AAS

期刊

ANALYTICAL METHODS
卷 5, 期 12, 页码 3129-3135

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3ay40452h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) [APQ-00068-08]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work efficient methods to determine copper and iron in dog serum samples by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry were developed. The samples were diluted at a 1 : 9 or 1 : 19 (for Cu and Fe, respectively) ratio with 1% (v/v) nitric acid containing a 0.1% Triton X-100 solution. Rhodium for copper and no modifier for iron proved to be the better permanent modifier. Optimization included fractional factorial planning using Pareto and the CCD designs. For both analytes the working linear range was 0-100 mg L-1 (r(2) > 0.99). The obtained LOQ was 19.3 +/- 2.8 mu g L-1 for Cu and 16.5 +/- 0.2 mu g L-1 for Fe. Aqueous and matrix matching calibration curves had average angular coefficients that were not statistically different, i.e. the matrix effect was absent for both analytes. The accuracy was checked by recovery tests with an average of 101 +/- 4% (n = 45) for Cu and 90 +/- 3% for Fe (n = 45). The certified reference material Seronorm (TM) Trace Elements Serum L-1 obtained was 1705 +/- 20 mg L-1 for Cu (certified: 1691 +/- 84 mu g L-1) and 1.40 +/- 1.22 mg L-1 for Fe (certified: 1.43 +/- 0.08 mg L-1). Cu and Fe levels in 39 canine serum samples - 9 uninfected, 19 symptomatic and 11 asymptomatic dogs naturally infected with Leishmania chagasi - ranged from 374 to 913 mu g L-1, and 1103 to 4260 mu g L-1, respectively. Cu was higher in symptomatic than in asymptomatic and control dogs, and Fe was significantly lower in symptomatic than in either asymptomatic or control dogs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据