氢化物发生原子荧光法与石墨炉原子吸收法在测定职业接触者血铅中的应用比较研究  

Comparison between hydride generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry and graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry for blood lead analysis

作　　者：张琪[1] 麦洁梅[1] 

机构地区：[1]广州市番禺区疾病预防控制中心,广州511400

出　　处：《中国卫生检验杂志》2008年第6期1051-1053,共3页Chinese Journal of Health Laboratory Technology

基　　金：广州市番禺区科技计划资助项目(2005-Z17-1)

摘　　要：目的:通过对氢化物发生原子荧光法与石墨炉原子吸收法两种检测方法在测定职业接触者血铅中的应用比较研究,评价氢化物发生原子荧光法应用在测定职业接触者血铅方面的实用性和可靠性。方法:用两种方法分别检测同一批职业接触者血铅样品及血铅标准物质,对检测结果进行统计分析。结果:两种方法的检测结果具有较高的符合度,经t检验,P>0.05。结论:石墨炉原子吸收法稳定性强,两种方法检测结果高度相符。氢化物发生原子荧光法仪器设备价廉,成本低,上机分析速度快,操作要求简单,有利于在基层单位开展推广。Objective：To compare and evaluate hydride generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry （AFS） with graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry （ GFAAS ） for blood lead analysis. Methods ： These two methods were used to analyze the same samples of the workmen who were exposed to lead at the same time. The practicability and reliability of the results were evaluated by the statistic analysis. Results： Limits of detection （LOD） for AFS and GFAAS were 1.6 μg/L and 0.45μg/ L. Limits of quality （LOQ） were 5.5 μg/L and 1.5 for AFS and GFAAS. The results of the blood samples analyzed by these two methods were in high correlation after t test （ P 〉 0. 05 ）. Conclusion： The data demonstrated by the AFS method could be in the complete conformity to GFASS for the blood samples in lead analysis. The stability of GFASS is better than that of AFS. The AFS is easy of operation and precision, the speed of analysis is faster. It is advantageous to develop the AFS method in the basic unit.

关 键 词：氢化物发生原子荧光法 石墨炉原子吸收法 职业接触者 血铅 

分 类 号：O657.31[理学—分析化学]