Overnight storage of whole blood: cooling and transporting blood at room temperature under extreme temperature conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many countries allow the overnight storage of whole blood (WB) at ambient temperature. Some countries, such as Canada, also require a rapid cooling of WB with an active cooling system. Given the significant operational constraints associated with current cooling systems, an alternative method for cooling and transporting WB at 20-24°C was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phase 22 cooling packs (TCP Reliable Inc., USA) were used in combination with vacuum-insulated panel (VIP) boxes. Temperature profiles of simulated WB units were studied in extreme temperatures (-35 and 40°C). The quality of blood components prepared using Phase 22 packs and CompoCool-WB (Fresenius HemoCare, Germany) was studied. RESULTS: Phase 22 packs reduced the temperature of simulated WB bags from 37 to 24°C in 1·7 ± 0·2 h. Used in combination with VIP boxes, Phase 22 packs maintain the temperature of bags between 20 and 24°C for 15 and 24 h, compared to 2 and 11 h with CompoCool-WB, when exposed at -35 and 40°C, respectively. The quality of platelet concentrates and plasma was comparable, regardless of the cooling system used. For red blood cell units, per cent haemolysis on day 42 was slightly higher in products prepared after cooling with Phase 22 packs compared to CompoCool-WB (0·33 ± 0·15% vs. 0·21 ± 0·06%; P < 0·05). CONCLUSIONS: Phase 22 packs combined with VIP boxes are an acceptable alternative to butane-1,4-diol cooling systems. This system allows blood manufacturers to transport WB to processing facilities in a broad range of environmental conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".