1952
DOI: 10.1080/00968205209343881
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Problems in the Analysis of Urinary Coproporphyrin III

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1965
1965
1965
1965

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 5 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The methods mainly used for the quantitative determination of coproporphyrin fall into two groups: fluorimetric (De Langen and ten Berg, 1948;Fikentscher, 1932;Harrold, Meek, and Padden, 1952;Johnson and Whitman, 1950;Maloof, 1950;Parkinson and Cholak, 1952;Schwartz, Hawkinson, Cohen, and Watson, 1947;Schwartz, Zieve, and Watson, 1951) and, less frequently, spectrophotometric (Sveinsson, Rimington, and Barnes, 1949). Practically all the fluorimetric methods described in the literature are based on the extraction of coproporphyrin from acidified urine by means of ether or ethyl acetate and its subsequent further extraction from the organic solvent with hydrochloric acid.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The methods mainly used for the quantitative determination of coproporphyrin fall into two groups: fluorimetric (De Langen and ten Berg, 1948;Fikentscher, 1932;Harrold, Meek, and Padden, 1952;Johnson and Whitman, 1950;Maloof, 1950;Parkinson and Cholak, 1952;Schwartz, Hawkinson, Cohen, and Watson, 1947;Schwartz, Zieve, and Watson, 1951) and, less frequently, spectrophotometric (Sveinsson, Rimington, and Barnes, 1949). Practically all the fluorimetric methods described in the literature are based on the extraction of coproporphyrin from acidified urine by means of ether or ethyl acetate and its subsequent further extraction from the organic solvent with hydrochloric acid.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%