[Histonet] 4% PFA (Carcinogenic?)

[S Ladd]

We do perfusions in a fume hood.

-----Original Message-----
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu]On Behalf Of Pablo
Sanchez Quinteiro
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:53 AM
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] 4% PFA (Carcinogenic?)


Whenever I have had problems with 4% PFA samples (mainly in brain samples)
I have turned to Bouin's Fluid. It is wonderful: much easier to prepare
than paraformaldehyde and fixation is really good with excellent
preservation of the tissue and even nicer H-E staining than PFA. On the
negative side some histological stainings and some antibodies do not work
with Bouin's samples. But if you have problems with PFA is worth to have a
trial with Bouin.

On the negative side of PFA I have recently read that PFA is probably
carcinogenic in humnas. Is that true? What cautions do you take, PFA
people? During perfusion and dissection of the tissue it is not easy to me
avoiding contact with the PFA fumes.

Thanks for your input.

Pablo Sanchez


>I completely agree with you. I have done side by side experiments and found
>the results to be far superior with 10% NBF or 10% formalin. For whatever
>reason, the sections expand and distort more on the waterbath with 4%
>formaldehyde made from paraformaldehyde (4%PFA) and are more difficult to
>section. I think its the methanol (the very methanol everyone is trying to
>avoid by using 4%PFA).
>
>Sharron
>USF



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