Re: [Histonet] Film or glass

From:Rene J Buesa

  Manual coverslipping is expensive because of the time it requires to have histotechs doing the task, so any lab trying to increase productivity should automat this step of the work flow.
  For maximum speed and convenience you should go with film coverslipping BUT some pathologists don't like it.
  Their reasons are that some say that for phtomicrographs glass is better (and they are WRONG in that) or that archival slides with film will deteriorate faster and may lose the film (and they are RIGHT in that).
  A regular objective (20:1 or 40:1) has a non critical NA (numerical apperture) and will define well with the light coming through the film, BUT if the amount of xylene is below what is  needed, the film can separate from the section after some time.
  So I would recommend you to talk to your pathologists before selection, but you should automat this step anyway.
  Hope this will help you!
  René J.

Marcia Funk  wrote:

I know you can help... I'm looking at glass or film coverslipper what do you find best about film or glass.
We are using glass and still coversliping by hand... I know we are little behind with that part of our lab
but you know how budget and Histo goes sometime... So if you can share I really would like
to hear from you, I value your imput.


Histonet mailing list

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Histonet mailing list

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>