Objective:To establish ICP-AES and ICP-MS methods for determination of aluminum impurities in fat emulsion injection and compare the difference between the two methods.Methods:Compare the linearity,accura-cy,repeatability,detection limit,quantification limit and sample determination results of the two methods by meth-odological verification and determination.Results:The linearity range of two methods were 5-200 μg·L-1,the correlation coefficients were greater than 0.999,the average recovery were 103.0％,106.7％,103.2％(n=9)and 99.8％,106.5％,100.8％(n=9),The RSD of reproducibility both were 2.0％,the detection limit of two methods were 1.22 and 0.36 μg·L-1.The quantification limit of two methods were 4.07 and 1.20 μg·L-1.The contents of aluminum impurities in 8 batches of fat emulsion injection were basically the same.Conclusion:The two methods were convenient,sensitive,accurate and good repeatability,which can be used for the determination of aluminum impurities in fat emulsion injection.

Objective:To establish ICP-AES and ICP-MS methods for determination of aluminum impurities in fat emulsion injection and compare the difference between the two methods.Methods:Compare the linearity,accura-cy,repeatability,detection limit,quantification limit and sample determination results of the two methods by meth-odological verification and determination.Results:The linearity range of two methods were 5-200 μg·L-1,the correlation coefficients were greater than 0.999,the average recovery were 103.0％,106.7％,103.2％(n=9)and 99.8％,106.5％,100.8％(n=9),The RSD of reproducibility both were 2.0％,the detection limit of two methods were 1.22 and 0.36 μg·L-1.The quantification limit of two methods were 4.07 and 1.20 μg·L-1.The contents of aluminum impurities in 8 batches of fat emulsion injection were basically the same.Conclusion:The two methods were convenient,sensitive,accurate and good repeatability,which can be used for the determination of aluminum impurities in fat emulsion injection.

Objective:To establish an HPLC method for the determination of oxidized glutathione in glutathione tablets. Meth-ods:AnAgilentTC-C18(250mm×4.6mm,5 μm)columnwasusedwiththemobilephaseofphosphatesolution(pH3.0)-methanol (96∶4). The flow rate was 1. 0 ml·min-1. The detection wavelength was 210 nm. The column temperature was 30℃ and the injec-tion volume was 20 μl. Results:The linear range of oxidized glutathione was 1.403-22.450 μg·ml-1(r=0.999 9). The recovery was 98. 9% with RSD of 1. 5%(n=9). Conclusion:The method is accurate and repeatable, and can control the content of oxidized glutathione in glutathione tablets effectively. .