ArticleJournal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition2022
Simplifying quantitative measurement of free radical species using an X-band EPR spectrometer.
Article in Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of Oxygenation and Oxygen Consumption Rates in the Mouse Brain Based on Tissue Oxygen Level-Dependent (TOLD) MRI.NMR in biomedicine · 2025Article
- Stable Nitroxide as Diagnostic Tools for Monitoring of Oxidative Stress and Hypoalbuminemia in the Context of COVID-19.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quantitative measurement of free radicals in liquid using an X-band electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) was systematized. Quantification of free radicals by EPR requires a standard sample that contains a known spin amount/concentration. When satisfactory reproducibility of the sample material, volume, shape, and positioning in the cavity for EPR measurements can be guaranteed, a sample tested and a standard can be directly compared and the process of quantification can be simplified. The purpose of this study was to simplify manual quantitative EPR measurement. A suitable sample volume for achieving a stable EPR intensity was estimated. The effects of different solvents on the EPR sensitivity were compared. The stability and reproducibility of the EPR intensity of standard nitroxyl radical solutions were compared among different types of sample tubes. When the sample tubes, sample volumes, and/or solvents were the same, the EPR intensity was reproduced with an error of 2% or less for μM samples. The quantified sample and the standard sample in the same solvent and the same volume drawn into the same sample tube was able to be directly compared. The standard sample for quantification should be measured just before or after every daily experiment.
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.