Re: glutaraldehyde

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, T. E. Andersen wrote:

> As a professional microscopist, I use glutaraldehyde on a regular basis.
> It's odor is different, but every bit as pungent as formalin, and all
> the same precautions should be taken.

Thank you for the very interesting brief on gultaraldehyde... Now I'm
wondering if you can answer the following -- do you know any reason why
the glutaraldehyde would be better for the purpose than formaldehyde?

The reason we changed from formaldehyde to glyoxal was that formaldehyde
became generally unavailable. My understanding is that the reason was NOT
the toxicity, that was the *pretext* -- the reason, I heard from those who
supposedly know, is that it's used in making -- maybe it was crack
cocaine, or like that.

I myself am satisfied with glyoxal, finding it much less painful to work
with than formaldehyde, and as I've mentioned, no problem with yellowing
once I started rinsing after the hardening. (Tho I don't put it in the
gelatin, only a bath afterwards).

However, for those unhappy with glyoxal... formaldehyde is available (or
was a couple of years ago) by prescription at a decent sized pharmacy. Do
you have any advice about which would be worse (or better?). My
inclination would be the formaldehyde, since it's well tested for the
purpose... at least 50 years, actually closer to 100 if I remember
correctly.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the subject...

Judy

> I strongly suspect that the lack of information on some of the health
> issues mentioned in the datasheet in the link below is due to the
> limited use of this chemical (at least compared with formalin).
> Glutaraldehyde is a cross-linking substance, and I for one will treat it
> as a possible carcinogenic substance, regardless of missing entries in
> the safety sheet. Note that it says "no info available"!
>
> I take all the same precautions with glutaraldehyde as with formalin,
> and I would strongly recommend you all to do the same. Even with
> formalin/ formaldehyde, there is not totally conclusive evidence that
> it's carcinogenic. This is not to say that it isn't, but it shows that
> these things are *very* hard to document. Please don't relax safety and
> end up being on the wrong side of the statistics! Use gloves and fume hoods!
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tom Einar Andersen
>
>
>
>
> Gordon J. Holtslander wrote:
>
> > Its used in microscopy as a tissue fixative. Check microscopy suppliers,
> > like pelco for example:
> >
> > http://www.pelcoint.com/chemical_html/chem1.htm
> >
> > For others considering using glutaraldehyde a good health & safety
> > outline:
> >
> > http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/glutaraldehyde/health_glu.html
> >
> > (one will likely have to paste this long multiline URL together for it to
> > work properly)
> >
> > Gord
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 17 01:56:34 2004