What is the optimal light intensity for studying epithelial cells in microscopy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter superwolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cells
AI Thread Summary
Epithelial cells from the human oral cavity are approximately 30 microns in size when obtained via cheek swab, but in vivo or cultured monolayers, they present a cross-section closer to 10 microns. Low light intensity is crucial in bright field microscopy to filter out infrared light and prevent cell dehydration. Excessive light can cause photodamage to the cells, impacting their viability. While low intensity is important, the focus should be on managing the light spectrum rather than just reducing intensity. Proper light management is essential for effective microscopy of epithelial cells.
superwolf
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
What is the approximate size of epithelia cells from the human oral cavity? And why must light intensity be low when studying them in bright field microscopy? (I know that phase contrast is better).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Cells obtained by a 'cheek swab' are large- 30 microns across, easily. Now, in vivo (and in cultured monolayers), the epithelial cells pack together and present a cross-section closer to 10 microns.

The intensity doen't need to be low, exactly- what is important is to filter out the IR part of the spectrum and prevent dry-out. Even so, too much light is damaging to cells- not cancer, but photodamage can occur.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top