Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 32Reproductive Health and ContraceptionCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionAntimicrobial agents and applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reduction of the “burst release” of copper ions from copper-based intrauterine devices by organic inhibitors

Open access
Alvarez, Florencia, Schilardi, Patricia L., de Mele, Monica Fernández Lorenzo·2012·Contraception

Abstract

Background The copper intrauterine device is a contraceptive method that is based on the release of copper ions from a copper wire. Immediately after insertion, the dissolution of copper in the uterine fluid is markedly higher ("burst release") than that necessary for contraception action, leading to a variety of harmful effects.Study design Pretreatments with organic compounds [thiourea (TU) and purine (PU), 10(-4)-10(-2) M concentration range, 1- and 3-h immersion times] were tested. The dissolution of copper with and without pretreatments in TU and PU solutions was analyzed by conventional electrochemical techniques and surface analysis.Results Pretreatments in PU solutions reduced the initial corrosion rate of copper in simulated uterine solutions, with inhibitory efficiencies that depend on the PU concentration and on the immersion time assayed. Inhibitory efficiency values higher than 98% for pretreatments with ≥10(-3) M PU were found. Conversely, after TU pretreatments, a high copper release was measured.Conclusions It was concluded that 10(-3) M PU pretreatment is a promising strategy able to reduce the "burst release" of copper and to ensure contraceptive action.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.05.011

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Alvarez, F., Schilardi, P. L., & de Mele, M. F. L.
Affiliations
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
Venue
Contraception
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
85
Issue
1
Pages
91-98
ISSN
0010-7824 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114346301
Cited by
32
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Contraception (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
  • Universidad Nacional de La Plata (11/I129, 11/X532)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Corrosion Behavior and Inhibition
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antimicrobial agents and applications
Keywords
copper intrauterine device, burst release, copper ion release, corrosion inhibition, purines, thiourea, uterine fluid, corrosion rate, pretreatment, contraceptive devices
MeSH terms
Copper, Corrosion, Intrauterine Devices, Copper, Purines, Thiourea, Electrochemical Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.