CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

June 2005

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Barbara Foster <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:50:37 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (110 lines)
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hi, Carl

In my experience, a refractive index difference of 0.001 is not going to be
substantial.  We routinely do a lab in my classes in which we do experiments
showing the impact of ri using a salt crystal (ri =1.47) in air (ri = 1.00) and
immersion oil (1.5212).  The ri difference of 0.05 between the salt and oil are
enough to produce good clean edges (salt and air produces significant internal
reflection which obscures edge information).  When we do actual ri testing, we
often use oils that have a 0.002 difference (although we can mix to get more
exact values).  Based on all of these experiments, I think you will be safe in
your assumption.

Good hunting!

Barbara Foster


Quoting carl <[log in to unmask]>:

> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Hello all,
> After gaining increased respect for how subtle changes in imaging conditions
> affect image quality, would it be safe to say that these values are
> essentially interchageable?  Given the relatively coarse resolution in z
> compared with x and y, how big a difference in image quality and
> quantitative potential would these media produce?
> Thanks,
> Carl
>
> Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
> Molecular and Cellular Biology
> University of Arizona
> 520-626-8469
> FAX 520-621-3709
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clements, Ian" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: refractive index of HBSS?
>
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Hello
>
> I just measured this and got the following. These were done at room temp
> as I didn't have the temp controller hooked up.
>
> E-pure water 1.333
> 1x HBSS      1.334
> 1x PBS       1.3345
>
>
> Ian Clements
> Scientist
> Molecular Probes.
> Invitrogen Corporation
> 29851 Willow Creek Road
> Eugene, OR 97402
> Tel: 541 335 0416
> Fax: 541 33 0177
> Email:  [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Resnick
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:06 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Q: refractive index of HBSS?
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> All,
>
> We are doing some quantitative microscopy on live cells,
> including  deconvolution, and we need to know the refractive index of
> our
> culture medium (green light, 37 degrees C).  Basically, we are using
> Hanks'
> Balanced  Salt Solution (HBSS) (without phenol red).  I asked
> Invitrogen,
> but they do not have that information.  If anyone has any idea, please
> let
> me know- we've been using  n = 1.4 for now.  Thanks in advance,
>
> Andy
>
>
> Andrew Resnick, Ph. D.
> Instructor
> Department of Physiology and Biophysics
> Case Western Reserve University
> 216-368-6899 (V)
> 216-368-4223 (F)
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2