212165寡核苷酸类抗流感药物钠含量测定仲婕.docVIP

212165寡核苷酸类抗流感药物钠含量测定仲婕.doc

  1. 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
  2. 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  3. 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
  4. 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
  5. 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们
  6. 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
  7. 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
寡核苷酸抗流感药物钠含量测定 仲婕1,2,李保山1,2,朱德领1,2*,张金钟1,2,施明珠1,2 杭州天龙药业有限公司,浙江杭州 310021; 2.军科天龙药物研究院,浙江杭州 310021) 摘要:目的:用、原子吸收光谱1mL·min-1;测量结果与国标方法(火焰原子收光谱法)进行方法学评价比较;应用配对t检验和Bland -Altman法对两种测量方法进行一致性评价。结果:两种方法的精密度分别为:2.0%和0.7%,重现性分别为2.0%和7.96%,回收率分别为97.2%和89.5%,线性方程分别为:Y=105.22X=0.1007,r=1.0000,Y=0.2894X+0.006, r=0.9991;测量结果无显著性差异,配对t检验P>0.05;Bland -Altman一致性评价的95%一致性界限为:(-1.514,1.487),绝大多数差值都位于该区间内。结论:离子色谱法的重现性和回收率均优于原子吸收法;Bland -Altman法综合判断两组数据具有高度的一致性。 关键词:离子色谱法;原子吸收光谱Study on the content of sodium in oligonucleotide bulk pharmaceuticals ZHONG Jie1,2,LI Bao-shan1,2 ZHU De-ling1,2* ZHANG Jing-zhong1,2,,SHI Min-zhu1,2 (1.Hangzhoutianlong Pharmaceutinal CO.,Ltd.,Hangzhou 310021, China; 2. Institute of Junketianlong Materia Medica, Hangzhou 310021, China ) ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE Determination of sodium content in oligonucleotide bulk pharmaceuticals by ion-chromatography and atomic absorption spectrophotometry. To evaluate the the degree of agreement between measurements. METHODS The precision,linearity, repeatability and analytical recovery were evaluated on Dionex ICS900 and Shimadzu AA-6300C. By using paired t test and Bland-Sltman method to estimate consistency of two kinds of instrument and decide whether the data is replaceability or not. RESULTS The two method results showed that the precision were 2.0% and 0.7%,the repeatability were 2.0% and 7.96%,the analytical recovery were 97.2%(RSD=2.46%,n=6) and 89.5%(RSD=8.59%,n=6) for ion-chromatography and atomic absorption spectrophotometry,respectively. The mean difference was -0.0136% with 95% confidence interval -1.514 to 1.487.Most of the differences lay between these limist (between d-1.96s and d+1.96S). CONCLUSION There is no significant difference compared with the standard method—flame absorption spectrum method. Moreover, the ion-chromatography method had demonstrated its superiority in repeatability and analytical recovery. KEY WORDS: IC;AAS;comparison;paired t test; bland-altman method; the degree of agreement 钠离子的电

文档评论(0)

6u263b6 + 关注
实名认证
文档贡献者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档