A Comparison of Simple Analytical Methods for Determination of Fluoride in Microlitre-Volume Plasma Samples

dc.contributor.authorZohoori, F. Vida
dc.contributor.authorMaguire, Anne
dc.contributor.authorMartinez-Mier, E. Angeles
dc.contributor.authorBuzalaf, Marília Afonso Rabelo
dc.contributor.authorSanderson, Roy
dc.contributor.authorEckert, George J.
dc.contributor.departmentCariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of Dentistryen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-27T19:51:22Z
dc.date.available2019-06-27T19:51:22Z
dc.date.issued2019-04
dc.description.abstractThe aim was to compare potential methods for fluoride analysis in microlitre-volume plasma samples containing nano-gram amounts of fluoride. Methods: A group of 4 laboratories analysed a set of standardised biological samples as well as plasma to determine fluoride concentration using 3 methods. In Phase-1, fluoride analysis was carried out using the established hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDS)-diffusion method (1 mL-aliquot/analysis) to obtain preliminary measurement of agreement between the laboratories. In Phase-2, the laboratories analysed the same samples using a micro-diffusion method and known-addition technique with 200 µL-aliquot/analysis. Coefficients of Variation (CVs) and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were estimated using analysis of variance to evaluate the amount of variation within- and between-laboratories. Based on the results of the Phase-2 analysis, 20 human plasma samples were analysed and compared using the HMDS-diffusion method and known-addition technique in Phase-3. Results: Comparison of Phase-1 results showed no statistically significant difference among the laboratories for the overall data set. The mean between- and within-laboratory CVs and ICCs were < 0.13 and ≥0.99, respectively, indicating very low variability and excellent reliability. In Phase-2, the overall results for between-laboratory variability showed a poor CV (1.16) and ICC (0.44) for the micro-diffusion method, whereas with the known-addition technique the corresponding values were 0.49 and 0.83. Phase-3 results showed no statistically significant difference in fluoride concentrations of the plasma samples measured with HMDS-diffusion method and known- addition technique, with a mean (SE) difference of 0.002 (0.003) µg/mL. In conclusion, the known-addition technique could be a suitable alternative for the measurement of fluoride in plasma with microlitre-volume samples.en_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.citationZohoori, F. V., Maguire, A., Martinez-Mier, E. A., Buzalaf, M. A. R., Sanderson, R., & Eckert, G. J. (2019). A Comparison of Simple Analytical Methods for Determination of Fluoride in Microlitre-Volume Plasma Samples. Caries Research, 53(3), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1159/000492339en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/19732
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherKargeren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1159/000492339en_US
dc.relation.journalCaries Researchen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourceAuthoren_US
dc.subjectfluorideen_US
dc.subjectplasmaen_US
dc.subjectmethoden_US
dc.titleA Comparison of Simple Analytical Methods for Determination of Fluoride in Microlitre-Volume Plasma Samplesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Zohoori_2018_comparison.pdf
Size:
411.42 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: