JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miksa, I.
Right arrow Articles by Poppenga, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miksa, I.
Right arrow Articles by Poppenga, R.
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 16, Issue 2, 139-144
Copyright © 2004 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Evaluation Studies

Detection of nonesterified (free) fatty acids in bovine serum: comparative evaluation of two methods

IR Miksa, CL Buckley, and RH Poppenga

Department of Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, New Bolton Center, Toxicology, Kennett Square, PA 19348, USA.

A method comparison study for the determination and quantitation of nonesterified fatty acids (NEFAs) in serum, using the commercial "NEFA C" enzymatic test kit, was performed using the spectrophotometric method recommended by the manufacturer and a modified procedure optimized for the use of a microplate reader, a 96-well microtiter plate, and small sample volumes (10 microl). Linearity, sensitivity, and precision using the test kit were determined for each method of detection. The assay was linear from 0 to 1.97 mEq/liter for both procedures, and the limits of detection were determined to be 0.22 (+/- 0.074) and 0.05 (+/- 0.002) mEq/liter for the spectrophotometer and microplate reader, respectively. Pairs of measurements for bovine serum samples were compared and evaluated by a mean difference plot method and not regression analysis, a method that has been shown to be inappropriate for method comparison studies. The difference plot was used to evaluate the systematic bias between the 2 methods. Random error is reported on the basis of SD differences, and "limits of agreement" are used to describe the maximum differences likely to occur between the 2 methods. Results suggest that the microplate reader method can be used reliably in place of the recommended spectrophotometric method. The microplate reader method is preferred because of its high throughput capabilities, simultaneous analysis of all the standards and samples, use of small sample and reagent volumes, and reduction in labor requirements and costs.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.