If I remember correctly, J.R. Baker mentioned that the Ca in "Formol
Calcium" forms coacervates (soaps?) with glycerides and FA's(?).  It's main
value to one who is fixing bone is that the CaOAc that is used in the
formulation brings the pH, and holds it, close to 7.

Hope this helps, and hope my memory is serving me breakfast rather than
"stuck' soup,

Frederick C. Monson, PhD
Center for Advanced Scientific Imaging
Mail Drop:  Geology
West Chester University
West Chester, PA, 19383
http://darwin.wcupa.edu/casi/
Phone/FAX:  610-738-0437 


-----Original Message-----
From: Chan Wai Kam [mailto:doscwk@nus.edu.sg] 
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:31 PM
To: HistoNet Server
Subject: Formol calcium versus NBF

Hi Histonetters,

Our lab has been using 10% formol calcium for fixation of rabbits bones
for years, as recommended by a visiting scientist.  I'm just wondering
whether there's any difference between using this compared to neutral
buffered formalin.  I've read that formol calcium is better for
preserving lipids but since our specimens are for normal processing in
paraffin which removes lipids, I'm wondering if it's really necessary to
keep to formol calcium.

Julee C 
Orthopaedic Surgery
National University of Singapore