jakku at mrna.tn.nic.in
Mon Jul 16 14:03:00 EST 2001
I do agree with you. Moreover, metal is not a good substance to make a
mortar and pestle with to crush plant material in liq. N2. Metal tends to
become brittle at those temperatures. Am I right??
A little bit of coarseness is necessary for efficient crushing and the
mortar is better to be made of a non-conducting material like ceramic to
maintain the cold temperatures inside to a longer period of time. Nothing
to beat ceramic in all these... low heat transfer from outside, enough
roughness to ensure better crushing and resistance against breaking (against
the immense forces we apply while crushing even at that low temperature and
not while being dropped). Of course you can't use a hammer in ceramic
I think a better design would be to use ceramic rollers attached to a
central axis. Crush the frozen samples by simply turning the axis to and
fro by which the attached ceramic rollers is going to crush the leaves quite
efficiently, without spillage or danger of breakage.
I think that is a good idea.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dima Klenchin" <klenchin at REMOVE_TO_REPLY.facstaff.wisc.edu.tn.nic.in>
To: <methods at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: tissue crusher
> "Adrian Molenaar" <adrian.molenaar at agresearch.co.nz> wrote:
> :We find the mortar and pestle method for crushing tissue for RNA etc
> :extraction tedious and so, working with people in our workshop, have
> :developed a better device. We wondered if other Molecular Biologists
> :be interested in this simple, effective and robust tool. Our workshop
> :'hand' make tissue crushers on order for a fee. The current low value of
> :New Zealand dollar, ($1 NZ = $0.41 US) makes this quite cheap (similar to
> :gel tank and less than an ultra-turrax probe). Pictures of the crushers
> :pricing are available on the link below.
> :Adrian Molenaar
> Somehow looking at these pics I have a feeling that even thought the
> device might be easier to use than good ole mortar and pestle in
> LN2, it is probably less efficient and even less reproducible. Any
> reasons why I am wrong?
> - Dima
More information about the Methods