Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:23:21.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formaldehyde as a Fixative for Light and Electron Microscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

Freida L. Carson
Freida L. Carson*
Affiliation:
Baylor University Medical Center- Dallas

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Since Blum discovered its hardening properties in 1893, formaldehyde has become the most widely used fixative in the world for specimens to be examined by light microscopy. However, since most commercial preparations of formaldehyde contain methanol, a protein precipitant, formaldehyde has been considered an unsatisfactory fixative for tissues to be examined by electron microscopy.In 1973, Carson et a/, described a parallel study comparing the electron microscopic results of fixation with paraformaldehyde vs. formaldehyde. They found that there was no difference in the preservation of ultrastructural morphology provided that the buffer systems were identical. In 1976, McDowell and Trump described a fixative combining commercial formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde (4CF-1G). Both of these fixatives are dual purpose fixatives and preclude the selection of tissue for electron microscopy prior to fixation. They can both be prepared in large quantities and used for routine surgical specimens.

Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy Today , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , April 2000 , pp. 34 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2000

References

1. Carson, FL, Martin, JH, and Lynn, JA: Formalin fixation for electron microscopy. Am J Clin Path 59:365-373. 1973.Google Scholar

2. McDowell, EM and Trump, BF: Histologic fixatives suitable for diagnostic light and electron microscopy, Arch Path Lab Med 100:405-414, 1976.Google Scholar

3. Trump, BF and Jones, RT: Diagnostic Electron Microscopy. New York, John Wiley & Sons, pgs.115–130. 1978.Google Scholar

4. Pease, DC: Histological Techniques for Electron Microscopy, 2nd ed. New York. Academic Press, pgs. 39–40. 1964.Google Scholar

5. Carson, FL: Histotechnology: A Self-lnstructionat Text, 2nd ed. Chicago, ASCP Press, pgs 11–12. 1997.Google Scholar

6. Carson, F.L, Lynn, J.A, and J H, Martin. Ultrastructural effect of various buffers, osmolality, and temperature on paraformaldehyde fixation of the formed elements of blood and bone marrow. Texas Rep Biol Med 30:125-142, 1972.Google ScholarPubMed

7. Bernard, GR and Wynn, GG: Weight responses of tissue slices and albumin-gelatin gels during formaldehyde fixation with observation on the effect of pH. Anat Rec 150:463-472. 1964.Google Scholar

8. Maunsbach, AB: The influence of different fixatives and fixation methods on the ultrastructure of rat kidney proximal tubule cells. Effects of varying osmolaiity, ionic strength, buffer system, and fixative concentration of glutaraidehyde solutions. A Ultrastruct Res 15:283-309. 1966.Google Scholar