RE: [Histonet] Potassium phosphate or Sodium phosphate?

From:"Morken, Tim"

Rene is right that for immunohistochemistry on fixed tissue there is no functional differences between sodium and potassium phosphate salts for buffers. The critical factor in a wash buffer for IHC is the ion concentration ("strength" if you wish), not the type of salt. This all got started with buffers designed for live cells and tissues. The original Dulbecco's phosphate buffer was designed to mimic the type and concentration of the various salts in normal human blood and body fluids in order to make living cells happy. The adaption of that formulation to fixed cell/tissue procedures has caused a lot of  confusion over the years. 

Tim Morken

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Rene J Buesa
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:50 PM
To: Ms. Kátia Cristina Catunda;
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Potassium phosphate or Sodium phosphate?

The buffer action resides in the phosphate molecule acting as anion (negatively charged). Either sodium or potassium act as cations (+ charge, of equal charge) and are similar in reaction, so there are no theoretical advantages of one (K) over the other (Na).
  René J.

"Ms. Kátia Cristina Catunda"  wrote:
  Hi there,

Does anyone know advantages and disadvantages of using potassium phosphate buffer instead of sodium phosphate buffer on the rinsing of IHQ slides?

Let me explain... we used to use sodium phosphate mono and dibasic with NaCL, now we are using potassium phosphate mono and sodium phosphate dibasic with NaCL..


Ms. Kátia Catunda
+55 12 3203-0612 (direto)
+55 12 3203-0633 (PABX)

Histonet mailing list

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
Histonet mailing list

Histonet mailing list

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>