[Histonet] Glass vs. Tape Coverslippers

[Morken, Tim - Labvision]

Gary, We did find that plastic was no good for cytology specimens - at least
the lumpy ones - it wouldn't form a flat surface. For thin-prep it worked
great. I think the quality is OK for routine histology. In our lab we did
testing in the lab and when satisfied it was working well we switched over
without telling the pathologists. About two weeks later the Chief
Pathologist asked me when we would start using the plastic coverslips!

Tim Morken


-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Gill [mailto:garygill <@t> dcla.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:53 AM
To: 'Laurie Colbert'; WWmn916 <@t> aol.com; Histonet (E-mail)
Cc: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Glass vs. Tape Coverslippers


Plastic is no substitute for glass.  Just because one doesn't "see" a
difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference.  Whether the difference
makes a real difference in outcomes is another story.

ASTM specs for cover glasses apply to glass, not to tape.  The higher the
numerical aperture of an objective, and the better the objective quality
(i.e., achromat, fluorite, apochromat -- plan and non-plan), the more likely
that one will see imaging differences when tape is used.  Of course, using
glass doesn't ensure good quality.

Practical stuff like mounting medium and cover glass thickness, clean
lenses, and Kohler illumination also play a real role.  Image quality can't
be better than the weakest link.

The specs are relative to the impact of the physical and optical properties
of glass on light as it passes through the mounting medium and glass through
the objective.  For this reason, it's not nice to fool Mother Nature and use
plastic.

Gary Gill

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Colbert [mailto:laurie.colbert <@t> huntingtonhospital.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:23 AM
To: WWmn916 <@t> aol.com; Histonet (E-mail)
Cc: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Glass vs. Tape Coverslippers



We have a tape coverslipper, and we love it.  It is fast and we have had
very few problems with it.  Our pathologists have no problem reading the
slides, and as far as I know, there's never been a problem photographing a
slide.  We did demo the glass coverslippers when we were first looking for a
new coverslipper, and there were too many problems with slides sticking
together, air bubbles, and it was just all-around not as "user friendly."

Laurie Colbert
Huntington Hospital

-----Original Message-----
From: WWmn916 <@t> aol.com [mailto:WWmn916 <@t> aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:05 PM
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] Glass vs. Tape Coverslippers


Hello again,
 
I'm looking for opinions on the subject of glass coverslippers versus tape  
coverslipping.  I have the opportunity to decide on a system.  My only  
experience has been with tape coverslipping.  I understand machines  that
glass 
coverslip are slower than tape systems. Is the refractive index  better with
glass 
coverslips under the microscope?  Opinions pros/cons are  appreciated.
 
Deb King, HT(ASCP)
Sacramento, CA
_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet