ArticleBioengineered2022
Application of two on-site quantitative methods for the detection of total chlorine in the water in the hemodialysis industry.
Article in Bioengineered, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To observe the application of two instruments for the quantitative detection of total chlorine in the water in the hemodialysis industry, thereby evaluating the accuracy of the two tools and the consistency of their results, and evaluating their practical significance for the safety of hemodialysis treatment. Two methods, based on diethyl-p-phenylenediamine spectrophotometry and amperometric methods, were employed to detect the total chlorine concentration in running water and in activated carbon tank effluent. Correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the accuracy of the two instruments. The Bland-Altman test was used to evaluate the consistency of the two methods. The total chlorine tester showed high accuracy and good repeatability in terms of detecting the total chlorine concentration in running water and activated carbon tank effluent. The residual chlorine sensor had high accuracy and good repeatability for detecting the concentrations of total and free chlorine, respectively, in running water. When detecting the concentrations of total and free chlorine in the effluent of the activated carbon tank, the two test results showed a moderate correlation. The two detection methods had good consistency for the detection of total chlorine concentrations in running water and activated carbon tank effluent. The two reviewed methods can monitor changes in the total chlorine in running water and activated carbon tank effluent. It is important to take timely measures when the total chlorine concentration of the activated carbon tank effluent reaches a certain warning value, and therefore to better ensure the safety of hemodialysis treatment.
Indexed as
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.