Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 23, 2020

Pneumatic tube transportation of urine samples

  • Eline Sandvig Andersen ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Ivan Brandslund



Pneumatic tube transportation of samples is an effective way of reducing turn-around-time, but evidence of the effect of pneumatic tube transportation on urine samples is lacking. We thus wished to investigate the effect of pneumatic tube transportation on various components in urine, in order to determine if pneumatic tube transportation of these samples is feasible.


One-hundred fresh urine samples were collected in outpatient clinics and partitioned with one partition being carried by courier to the laboratory, while the other was sent by pneumatic tube system (Tempus600). Both partitions were then analysed for soluble components and particles, and the resulting mean difference and limits of agreement were calculated.


Albumin, urea nitrogen, creatinine, protein and squamous epithelial cells were unaffected by transportation in the Tempus600 system, while bacteria, renal tubular epithelial cells, white blood cells and red blood cells were affected and potassium and sodium may have been affected.


Though pneumatic tube transportation did affect some of the investigated components, in most cases the changes induced were clinically acceptable, and hence samples could be safely transported by the Tempus600 pneumatic tube system. For bacteria, white blood cells and red blood cells local quality demands will determine if pneumatic tube transportation is appropriate.

Corresponding author: Eline Sandvig Andersen, MD, Biochemistry and Immunology, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark, E-mail:


The authors would like to thank the patients and staff of the department of Biochemistry and Immunology at Lillebaelt Hospital.

  1. Research funding: I. Brandslund has previously received research funding from Timedico (previous owners of Tempus600), though no funding was received for the current study.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Ethical approval: The evaluation was performed in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration, Danish law and European data-protection regulations.


1. Andersen, I, Mogensen, N, Brandslund, I. Stability of biochemical components in blood samples transported by tempus600/sysmex GLP robot reception system. J Appl Lab Med: An AACC Publication 2017;1:376–86. in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Suchsland, J, Winter, T, Greiser, A, Streichert, T, Otto, B, Mayerle, J, et al.. Extending laboratory automation to the wards: effect of an innovative pneumatic tube system on diagnostic samples and transport time. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:225–30. in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Fernandes, CM, Worster, A, Eva, K, Hill, S, McCallum, C. Pneumatic tube delivery system for blood samples reduces turnaround times without affecting sample quality. J Emerg Nurs 2006;32:139–43. in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Guss, DA, Chan, TC, Killeen, JP. The impact of a pneumatic tube and computerized physician order management on laboratory turnaround time. Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:181–5. in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Kapoula, GV, Kontou, PI, Bagos, PG. The impact of pneumatic tube system on routine laboratory parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:1834–44. in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Plebani, M, Zaninotto, M. Pneumatic tube delivery systems for patient samples: evidence of quality and quality of evidence. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1245–6. in Google Scholar

7. Dolscheid-Pommerich, RC, Klarmann-Schulz, U, Conrad, R, Stoffel-Wagner, B, Zur, B. Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2016;26:82–9. in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

8. Kouri, T, Malminiemi, O, Penders, J, Pelkonen, V, Vuotari, L, Delanghe, J. Limits of preservation of samples for urine strip tests and particle counting. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:703–13. in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Heireman, L, Van Geel, P, Musger, L, Heylen, E, Uyttenbroeck, W, Mahieu, B. Causes, consequences and management of sample hemolysis in the clinical laboratory. Clin Biochem 2017;50:1317–22. in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Triger, DR, Smith, JW. Survival of urinary leucocytes. J Clin Pathol 1966;19:443–7. in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

11. Hastrup, J, Christensen, H, Madsen, JS, Mogensen, CB, Brandslund, I. Stability of biochemical components in blood samples transported by the new dedicated blood tube transport system, Tempus 600. Klinisk Biokemi i Norden 2013;25:38–46.Search in Google Scholar

12. Gils, C, Broell, F, Vinholt, PJ, Nielsen, C, Nybo, M. Use of clinical data and acceleration profiles to validate pneumatic transportation systems. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:560–8. in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10.10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001Search in Google Scholar

14. Previtali, G, Ravasio, R, Seghezzi, M, Buoro, S, Alessio, MG. Performance evaluation of the new fully automated urine particle analyser UF-5000 compared to the reference method of the Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber. Clin Chim Acta 2017;472:123–30. in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Ceriotti, F, Fernandez-Calle, P, Klee, GG, Nordin, G, Sandberg, S, Streichert, T, et al.. Criteria for assigning laboratory measurands to models for analytical performance specifications defined in the 1st EFLM Strategic Conference. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:189–94. in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Ko, DH, Lee, SW, Hyun, J, Kim, HS, Park, MJ, Shin, DH. Proposed imprecision quality goals for urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. Ann Lab Med 2018;38:420–4. in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

17. Palmer, BF, Clegg, DJ. The use of selected urine chemistries in the diagnosis of kidney disorders. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol : CJASN 2019;14:306–16. in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. De Rosa, R, Grosso, S, Lorenzi, G, Bruschetta, G, Camporese, A. Evaluation of the new Sysmex UF-5000 fluorescence flow cytometry analyser for ruling out bacterial urinary tract infection and for prediction of Gram negative bacteria in urine cultures. Clin Chim Acta 2018;484:171–8. in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Ren, C, Wu, J, Jin, M, Wang, X, Cao, H. Rapidly discriminating culture-negative urine specimens from patients with suspected urinary tract infections by UF-5000. Bioanalysis; 2018.10.4155/bio-2018-0175Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Kim, SY, Park, Y, Kim, H, Kim, J, Koo, SH, Kwon, GC. Rapid screening of urinary tract infection and discrimination of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria by automated flow cytometric analysis using sysmex UF-5000. J Clin Microbiol 2018;56. in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

21. SysmexCorporation S. Fully automated urine particle analyzer UF-5000 general information. Kobe: Sysmex Corporation; 2016. 43–55 pp.Search in Google Scholar

22. Fraser, CG, Hyltoft Petersen, P, Libeer, JC, Ricos, C. Proposals for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34:8–12. in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Oyaert, M, Speeckaert, M, Boelens, J, Delanghe, JR. Renal tubular epithelial cells add value in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract pathology. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:597–604. in Google Scholar PubMed

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (

Received: 2020-08-06
Accepted: 2020-11-06
Published Online: 2020-11-23
Published in Print: 2021-04-27

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 6.12.2023 from
Scroll to top button