Wenqi Wu1, Dong Yang2, Hans-Goran Tiselius3, Lili Ou2, Zanlin Mai2, Kang Chen2, Hanliang Zhu2, Shaohong Xu2, Zhijian Zhao2, Guohua Zeng2. 1. Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: wwqwml@163.com. 2. Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China. 3. Division of Urology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how different methods for storage and preservation of urine samples affected the outcome of analysis of risk factors for stone formation. METHODS: Spot urine samples were collected from 21 healthy volunteers. Each fresh urine sample was divided into ten 10-mL aliquots: 2 without preservative, 2 with thymol, 2 with toluene, 2 with hydrochloric acid (HCl), and 2 with sodium azide. One sample of each pair was stored at 4 °C and the other at room temperature. The concentrations of calcium, magnesium, sodium, phosphate, urate, oxalate, citrate, and pH in each urine sample were analyzed immediately after collection (0 hour) and after 24 and 48 hours. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in calcium, oxalate, magnesium, phosphate, sodium, urate or pH (without acidification) between samples with different preservation methods (P >.05). Urinary citrate, however, was significantly lower in the urine collected with HCl than when other preservatives were used, both at room temperature and at 4 °C. Urine pH was significantly higher after 48 hours than after 24 hours, whether the samples were stored at room temperature or at 4 °C. CONCLUSION: Antibacterial preservatives (eg, thymol or toluene) can be recommended as preservatives for 24-hour urine collections. Ideally, the samples should be stored at 4 °C. When HCl is used as a preservative, it seems essential to neutralize the samples before analysis. This is particularly obvious with the chromatographic method used for analysis of citrate that was used in this study.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how different methods for storage and preservation of urine samples affected the outcome of analysis of risk factors for stone formation. METHODS: Spot urine samples were collected from 21 healthy volunteers. Each fresh urine sample was divided into ten 10-mL aliquots: 2 without preservative, 2 with thymol, 2 with toluene, 2 with hydrochloric acid (HCl), and 2 with sodium azide. One sample of each pair was stored at 4 °C and the other at room temperature. The concentrations of calcium, magnesium, sodium, phosphate, urate, oxalate, citrate, and pH in each urine sample were analyzed immediately after collection (0 hour) and after 24 and 48 hours. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in calcium, oxalate, magnesium, phosphate, sodium, urate or pH (without acidification) between samples with different preservation methods (P >.05). Urinary citrate, however, was significantly lower in the urine collected with HCl than when other preservatives were used, both at room temperature and at 4 °C. Urine pH was significantly higher after 48 hours than after 24 hours, whether the samples were stored at room temperature or at 4 °C. CONCLUSION: Antibacterial preservatives (eg, thymol or toluene) can be recommended as preservatives for 24-hour urine collections. Ideally, the samples should be stored at 4 °C. When HCl is used as a preservative, it seems essential to neutralize the samples before analysis. This is particularly obvious with the chromatographic method used for analysis of citrate that was used in this study.
Authors: Angelito A Silverio; Wen-Yaw Chung; Cheanyeh Cheng; Hai-Lung Wang; Chien-Min Kung; Jun Chen; Vincent F S Tsai Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Thai H Ho; Rafael Nunez Nateras; Huihuang Yan; Jin G Park; Sally Jensen; Chad Borges; Jeong Heon Lee; Mia D Champion; Raoul Tibes; Alan H Bryce; Estrella M Carballido; Mark A Todd; Richard W Joseph; William W Wong; Alexander S Parker; Melissa L Stanton; Erik P Castle Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Majuran Perinpam; Erin B Ware; Jennifer A Smith; Stephen T Turner; Sharon L R Kardia; John C Lieske Journal: Biol Sex Differ Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 5.027
Authors: James C Williams; Giovanni Gambaro; Allen Rodgers; John Asplin; Olivier Bonny; Antonia Costa-Bauzá; Pietro Manuel Ferraro; Giovanni Fogazzi; Daniel G Fuster; David S Goldfarb; Félix Grases; Ita P Heilberg; Dik Kok; Emmanuel Letavernier; Giuseppe Lippi; Martino Marangella; Antonio Nouvenne; Michele Petrarulo; Roswitha Siener; Hans-Göran Tiselius; Olivier Traxer; Alberto Trinchieri; Emanuele Croppi; William G Robertson Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 3.436