An Audit and Comparison of pH, Measured Concentration, and Particulate Matter in Mannitol and Hypertonic Saline Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The preferred hyperosmolar therapy remains controversial. Differences in physical properties such as pH and osmolality may be important considerations in hyperosmolar agent selection. We aimed to characterize important physical properties of commercially available hyperosmolar solutions. Methods: We measured pH and concentration in 37 commonly-used hyperosmolar solutions, including 20 and 25% mannitol and 3, 5, 14.6, and 23.4% hypertonic saline. pH was determined digitally and with litmus paper. Concentration was determined by freezing point and vapor pressure osmometry. Salinity/specific gravity was measured with portable refractometry. Particulate matter was analyzed with filtration and light microscopy and with dynamic light scattering nephelometry. Results: pH of all solutions was below physiological range (measured range 4.13–6.80); there was no correlation between pH and solution concentration (R2 = 0.005, p = 0.60). Mannitol (mean 5.65, sd 0.94) was less acidic than hypertonic saline (5.16, 0.60). 14/59 (24%) pH measurements and 85/111 concentration measurements were outside manufacturer standards. All 36/36 mannitol concentration measurements were outside standards vs. 48/72 (67%) hypertonic saline (p < 0.0001). All solutions examined on light microscopy contained crystalline and/or non-crystalline particulate matter up to several hundred microns in diameter. From nephelometry, particulate matter was detected in 20/22 (91%) solutions. Conclusion: We present a novel characterization of mannitol and hypertonic saline. Further research should be undertaken, including research examining development of acidosis following hyperosmolar therapy, the relevance of our findings for dose-response, and the clinical relevance of particulate matter in solution.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".