LABORATORY TRIAL OF PROTEIN DETERMINATION IN URINE USING DIFFERENT PH VALUES OF ACETIC ACID AND ACETATE BUFFER METHOD
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract
The determination of protein in urine is important in clinical examination along with other parameters in urine. The presence of protein in urine can be interpreted that there is a disorder in kidney. Acid and heat coagulations method is still widely used in many areas to determine protein in urine. In this method, the characteristic of protein that will precipitate in the presence of acid or if exposed to heat is deployed to gain information about the amount of protein. The greater amount of protein, the more prominence is the coagulation. Urine pH also varies according to the condition, classic acidosis will give an acidic urine and the presence of ammonium producing bacteria can cause basic urine. In this research acetic acid method with 6% of CH3COOH and pH value of 2,9 and buffer acetic with pH 4,5 are used to determine the certain amount of protein (+3 value, corresponds with 2-4 mg/dL protein in urine) in varied pH values of urine samples. To compare the results, first in control urine with pH 6,8 the results of both methods is compared and shows no significant different, then the Kruskall-Wallis test is used to compare the results in other pH values to control and the test is shown also there are no significant difference. This shows that either acetic acid at pH 2,9 or acetic buffer at pH 4,5 can be used to determine protein amount in urine.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Stankov S V. Definition of Inflammation, 1. Zhang A, Huang S. Progress in pathogenesis of proteinuria. Int J Nephrol. 2012;2012.
Prakash M, Phani NM, Kavya R, Supriya M. Urinary peptide levels in patients with chronic renal failure. Online J Heal Allied Sci. 2010;9(3):1–3.
Hong DSC, Oh IH, Park JS, Lee CH, Kang CM, Kim GH. Evaluation of Urinary Indices for Albuminuria and Proteinuria in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2016;41(3):258–66.
Toblli JE, Bevione P, Di Gennaro F, Madalena L, Cao G, Angerosa M. Understanding the mechanisms of proteinuria: Therapeutic implications. Int J Nephrol. 2012;2012.
Vaidyanathan K. Textbook of Biochemistry for Medical Students. Textb Biochem Med Students. 2016;(August).
Beaufils MA an. MMM von D. The FIGO Textbook of Pregnancy Hypertension. Vol. 6, Nephrologie et Therapeutique. 2016. 200–214 p.
Mauliddina J. Detecting Proteinuria: A Comparison of Diagnostic Tests. Paediatr Indones. 2011;51(4):207–12.
Kwong T, Robinson C, Spencer D, Wiseman OJ, Karet Frankl FE. Accuracy of urine pH testing in a regional metabolic renal clinic: Is the dipstick accurate enough? Urol Res. 2013;41(2):129–32.
Pergande MR, Cologna SM. Isoelectric point separations of peptides and proteins. Proteomes. 2017;5(1).
Janairo, Gerardo, Linley Sy, Marianne, Yap, Leonisa, Llanos-Lazaro, Nancy, Robles J. Determination of the Sensitivity Range of Biuret Test for Undergraduate Bio...: Discovery Service for Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. e-Journal Sci Technol. 2011;6(5):p77-83.
Nahm FS. Nonparametric statistical tests for the continuous data: The basic concept and the practical use. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016;69(1):8–14.
Matica J. Disease : National Recommendations. 2017;27(1):153–76.
Chen YT, Hsu HJ, Hsu CK, Lee CC, Hsu KH, Sun CY, et al. Correlation between spot and 24h proteinuria: Derivation and validation of equation to estimate daily proteinuria. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):1–12.
Audain E, Ramos Y, Hermjakob H, Flower DR, Perez-Riverol Y. Accurate estimation of isoelectric point of protein and peptide based on amino acid sequences. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(6):821–7.
