ArticleScientific reports2019
Analysis of free chlorine in aqueous solution at very low concentration with lateral flow tests.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnetic Particle Spectroscopy for Point-of-Care: A Review on Recent Advances.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Magnetic nanoparticles and magnetic particle spectroscopy-based bioassays: a 15 year recap.Nano futures · 2022Article
- Ten Years of Lateral Flow Immunoassay Technique Applications: Trends, Challenges and Future Perspectives.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Functional paper-based materials for diagnostics.Chemtexts · 2021Article
- 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine as multi-colorimetric indicator of chlorine in water in line with health guideline values.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2020Article
- Small-volume point-of-care analytical methods.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Six decades of lateral flow immunoassay: from determining metabolic markers to diagnosing COVID-19.AIMS microbiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Test strips are convenient tools for rapid, semi-quantitative analysis of a variety of parameters by dipping them for a few seconds in a sample solution followed by a simple colorimetric read-out. Their sensitivity is mainly determined by the reactivity of the test dyes on the reaction zone and is not sufficient for some applications. The detection limit of commercially available free chlorine test strips, for example, is at present not low enough to confirm the absence of this analyte as disinfectant in rinsing solutions after disinfection or to control required residual amounts of chlorine in drinking water. Therefore, we developed a user-friendly lateral flow test which is capable to detect very low amounts of free chlorine. The latter relies on a larger sample volume passing the reaction zone as compared to simple dip test strips. An amount of as low as 0.05 ppm chlorine can, however, only be detected if oxidation stable flow test substrates are used. The eventually developed flow test reaches a 10x higher sensitivity than a commercial dip test. The result is obtained within 4-5 min flow time, whereby no action is required by the user during this analysis time.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.