3 ms·
> I don't think your logic follows at all. If the test isn't reliable, it may well falsely indicate EDTA is present, even if the blood didn't come from the vial
by 1024core 11y ago
> I don't think your logic follows at all. If the test isn't reliable, it may well falsely indicate EDTA is present, even if the blood didn't come from the vial.
No, it's a _detection_ test. Suppose it can detect EDTA above a certain threshold only. So it would be able say if EDTA is present _above_ that threshold; but its inability to detect would not implay that there is no EDTA, but just that there's insufficient EDTA to be detected. Which could be for a variety of reasons: evaporation? Exposure to UV light?
- kbenson 11y agoMy understanding is that we often test for a specific subcomponent in detection tests, since testing for the entirety of what you are looking for is not feasible. Unfortunately that can leads to false positives by correctly detecting the subcomponent, but it may have been provided from a different source. It's trivial to find examples of this, but I don't know enough about the EDTA test to know how well they, or this reasoning, applies.