Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 345

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A High-Throughput Screening Method for the Determination of Aqueous Drug Solubility Using Laser Nephelometry in Microtiter Plates

Bevan, Christopher D., Lloyd, Richard S.·2000·Analytical Chemistry

Abstract

The determination of aqueous solubility in a high-throughput screening environment is invaluable in the selection of the most promising potential drug candidates. We describe a fast method based on laser nephelometry that can determine the solubility of potential drug candidates (usually from combinatorial chemistry) supplied as dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) solutions in 96-well plates. In the sample, the percent DMSO is kept constant allowing direct comparison of results. The nephelometric method has been shown to produce results equivalent to those produced by an HPLC method and to be largely unaffected by colored solutions.

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 · 10.1021/ac9912247

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bevan, C. D., & Lloyd, R. S.
Venue
Analytical Chemistry
Published
2000-03-10
Volume
72
Issue
8
Pages
1781-1787
ISSN
  • 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6882
OpenAlex
W2083372859
Cited by
345
References
0
FWCI
7.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.