Advertisement

Urolithiasis 2 pp 234-234 | Cite as

Natural Urine Versus Synthetic Urine for Studying Inhibitors

  • T. G. Dhanalekshmy
  • C. Aravindakshan
  • S. Sindhu
  • S. V. Roshni
  • R. K. Vathsala
  • Y. M. Fazil Marickar

Abstract

Although there are many known inhibitors in urine they have not been able to account for the total inhibitor capacity of natural urine. The present study was undertaken to determine whether synthetic urine is useful for studying inhibitor properties and whether it can replace natural urine for such studies. The common crystals seen in human urine were grown in Hane’s tubes using a modified conventional silica gel medium. The effect of natural urine was tested by incorporating it into the crystal growth system. Synthetic urine was prepared by the procedure of Henry1. The ingredients known to have inhibitory activity, namely, tartrate, citrate and magnesium were added to the synthetic urine in concentrations of 630, 315 and 168 mg% respectively. The changes produced in the rate of growth of crystals, and the size of crystals grown under different environmental conditions in synthetic urine were compared with the findings produced with natural human urine.

Keywords

College Hospital Inhibitory Activity Clinical Diagnosis Maximum Effect Crystal Formation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Reference

  1. 1.
    JB Henry, Clinical Diagnosis and Management, WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia, pp 368–387 (1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. G. Dhanalekshmy
    • 1
  • C. Aravindakshan
    • 1
  • S. Sindhu
    • 1
  • S. V. Roshni
    • 1
  • R. K. Vathsala
    • 1
  • Y. M. Fazil Marickar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMedical College HospitalTrivandrumIndia

Personalised recommendations