Glucose Test Swaps Tears for Blood

Tears have much lower glucose levels than blood but, as the ratio is consistent, they could serve for diabetes glucose monitoring. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

People with diabetes may have to endure multiple, painful finger sticks every day to get blood samples for testing. But a new glucose test may do away with the pain even as it brings on the tears. Because the test uses tears instead of blood to measure glucose levels. The report is in the journal Analytical Chemistry. [Qinyi Yan et al., "Measurement of Tear Glucose Levels with Amperometric Glucose Biosensor/Capillary Tube Configuration"]

Researchers at the University of Michigan studied glucose in rabbits. They found that glucose levels are much lower in tears than in blood, but the difference is consistent. They thus aim to develop a sensitive enough system to detect sugar levels in tears.

But why are researchers going to all this trouble just so people with diabetes can avoid a pinprick?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In order to best control their glucose levels and prevent complications like kidney failure or limb amputation, some diabetics should be testing their blood multiple times a day. But the pain of jabbing a finger with a needle over and over keeps some patients from the frequent testing they need. With a pain-free test, that deterrent would vanish, making blood sugar tests a lot sweeter.

—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe