目的：通过对同一项目、不同检测方法的测定结果进行分析比对，探讨不同尿镉分析方法存在的误差是否在允许范围内，实现检测结果互认的可比性。方法：用石墨炉原子吸收光谱法为标准方法，微分电位溶出法为参比法，选取3份样品在原子吸收分光光度计和溶出仪上进行检测，同时带有质控样。分析比对实验所得的数据，计算方法间的相关性和相对偏差。结果：两种方法的分析误差均<3.69%，加标回收率均在95.3%~104.5%，在误差允许范围之内。在各自的试验条件下质控样也均在允许的范围之内，经过计算当t值在：-0.627~2.89时，P值在0.715~0.914。结论：通过比对实验数据分析，结果一致性良好，可以满足实验的要求，溶出仪法更适合大批量的高浓度的检测。%Objective:To discuss whether the error of different analysis method of the urine cadmium has within the scope of the permit,through a comparision between different detection methods on the same research object. In order to achieve the mutual recognition of test results comparable. Method:Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry was used as the standard method which was compared by the differential potentiometric stripping method. Three samples were tested by the atomic absorption spectrophotometer and differential potentiometric stripping device and the quality control samples was prepared at the same time. Then the data was analyzed and the correlation and relative deviation were calculated. Result:The analytical errors of both methods were less than 3.69%,the standard recovery rate both locate within 95.3%-104.5%, all locate within the range of allowable error. The value of the Quality control samples under each experimental condition also accord with the range of allowable error. After calculation,when t locates within-0.627-2.89,P locates within 0.715-0.914. Conclusion:The results of the experiment show that the results consistency of the two methods are favorable,which can meet the test requirements. The differential potentiometric stripping method is more suitable treating large quantities of high concentration of detection.
展开▼
