Talk:AutoAnalyzer

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Flow injection analyzer

I suggest moving the Flow injection analyzer section to Flow injection analysis. Biscuittin (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that FIA should be moved to Flow injection analysis. The AutoAnalyzer was based on segmented flow technology so this article should focus to SFA and not to FIA. The paragraph Safety measures is completely irrelevant and should be deleted. Also the picture of Cobas u 411 has nothing to do with AutoAnalyzer even though it is an automatic analyzer and it should be replaced by a picture of the original AutoAnalyzer made by Technicon. He who has a picture of the AutoAnalyzer, please do it.

Though the Autoanalyzer was used in medical laboratories at the beginning, I do not think the article belongs in the class "Medical articles". More correctly it should be classified into "Chemistry/Analytical chemistry/Instrumental analysis". (Clovek (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The definitions are problematic for me. Based on what I think I know:

The autoanalyzer article should be renamed "continuous flow analysis" [with autoanalyzer redirected to it. Currently, "continuous flow analysis" redirects to "autoanalyzer".]
Flow injection analysis is a subset of CFA and already has its own article.
Segmented flow analysis is a subset of CFA and could have its own article. [Currently SFA redirects to autoanalyzer]

Autoanalyzer is problematic since it is (was?) a brand name that has been used generically (similar to Kleenex or xerox).

Does that sound right? Lateg (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

safety section

While I appreciate the overview, I found the safety section confusing and not relevant. The section author rambles about odd things. I don't know enough about SFA and FIA to offer a good edit at this time. Cheers.

- I removed it completely. Lateg (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing peak diffusion in FIA

The basic prinicple of running a method with a long reaction times on a (non-segmented) FIA system is to
1. increase the temperature, because the rule of thumb is that rates of reaction double approximately every 10 degrees. For example, the phenolate ammonia method on the Lachat FIA runs a 600cm coil around a heater set at approximately 60 degrees, to accelerate colour development (whereas the same colour development takes 10 minutes at 37 degrees)
2. increase the reagent flow rates or decrease I.D of tubing, because in any flow situation there's a critical velocity where turbulence of the flowing solution overcomes diffuson, so the sample tends to 'self sweep' as it travels down the tube.

The biggest downside to FIA is the large reagent volumes that you burn through - much of which is basically wasted in the carrier used to separate out individual sample peaks.

Related to this, the easiest way to improve analytical sensitivity is to increase the size of the sample loop (eg 10cm for high range, 400+cm for ultra-low range). This increases the residence time of the sample flowing past the detector and allows time integration (ie signal to noise comparison) that eliminates the effect of a lot of system noise. This extremely long loop size decreases rate of analysis (since each sample might be passing the detector for 40+ seconds) and increases cost of analysis (since all the other reagents flow at a constant rate). 60.240.108.168 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AutoAnalyzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]