| From: | Tony Henwood |
Tony Henwood JP, BappSc, GradDipSysAnalys, CT(ASC)
Laboratory
Manager
The Children's Hospital at Westmead,
Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, 2145, AUSTRALIA.
Tel: (02) 9845 3306
Fax: (02) 9845
3318
http://www.histosearch.com/homepages/TonyHenwood/default.html
http://us.geocities.com/tonyhenwoodau/index.html
-----Original Message-----Sigma is no longer making premade Trisma Buffer pH 7.4
From: WWmn916@aol.com [mailto:WWmn916@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 13:26
To: histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
Subject: Tris or Phosphate buffer?
We have always used their product in making our solution for the NADH muscle stain.
I've experimented with a Sodium Phosphate diabasic/monobasic solution and the results looked the same as a NADH muscle stained with a Trisma buffer component.
Can anyone tell me what the difference between the two buffers are and what factors I need to consider, if any, in transitioning to making the sodium phosphate buffer to replace the Trisma buffer?
Lastly, does anyone know of a different supplier of premadeTrisma buffers, other than Sigma or Fisher (since Fisher gets their tris buffer from Sigma?)
Thanks,
Deb King HT
Sacramento, CA
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete it and notify the sender.
Views expressed in this message and any attachments are those
of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of The
Children's Hospital at Westmead
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
virus scanned and although no computer viruses were detected,
the Childrens Hospital at Westmead accepts no liability for any
consequential damage resulting from email containing computer
viruses.
**********************************************************************