New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
Locked
12
12
 
|
RICHARD BURRY |
Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
|
Based on my experience with a new building, and electron microscopes, watch for the building electrical substation and major trunk electrical lines. These will generate huge magnetic fields! I had all the bases covered for vibration, cooling water and power supply, but did not think that the architect would put the electrical substation for a 10 story building next to the EM rooms.
Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: Julian Smith III <[hidden email]> Date: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:21 am Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement To: [hidden email] > Second-floor lab here, with microscopes located less than 75m > from a > mechanical room. No unexpected complications. No > problems with our > TEM, but it's used mostly at medium magnification. We have > a pretty > stable building, but use vibration-isolation platforms in > several places > where that's important (currently under our SEM and a couple of > our > research microscopes). We're about to get a platform for > the confocal, > as we have our first users doing colocalization this fall, and > the > non-suspended optical table with the little cone-shaped feet > doesn't > provide enough isolation at the highest mag on our > instrument.... > I chaired the building committee, and I was sort of surprised > during > design/construction that the architects seemed completely unable > to > predict building vibrations. Hallway foot traffic during > class changes > turns out to be far more of a source of vibration than building > mechanicals.Julian > > Adrian Smith wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The University with which we are affiliated is currently > planning a > > large new research building which will incorporate an > (optical) > > cellular imaging facility. > > > > The design brief expressed a preference for a ground > floor/basement > > location for the imaging facility but the current plans have > the > > facility located on the 4th floor. > > > > The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical > > microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by > the time > > the facility is built), super-resolution. > > > > (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future > expansion/new > > technologies) > > > > I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about > just how > > important it is to have such a facility on the ground > floor/basement - > > ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose- > built > > building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced > > microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear > if there > > are locations where that has been a failure or there have been > > unexpected complications etc. > > > > All feedback gratefully received. > > > > Regards, > > > > Adrian Smith > > Centenary Institute, Australia > > > > > -- > Julian P.S. Smith III > Director, Winthrop Microscopy Facility > Dept. of Biology > Winthrop University > 520 Cherry Rd. > Rock Hill, SC 29733 > > 803-323-2111 x6427 (vox) > 803-323-3448 (fax) > 803-524-2347 (cell) > > > -- > BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 952829279) is spam: > Spam: > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=952829279&m=3176c5c93eef&c=sNot > spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=952829279&m=3176c5c93eef&c=n > Forget vote: > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=952829279&m=3176c5c93eef&c=f---- > -------------------------------------------------- > END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > Richard W. Burry, Ph.D. Department of Neuroscience, College of Medicine Campus Microscopy and Imaging Facility, Director The Ohio State University Associate Editor, Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 277 Biomedical Research Tower 460 West Twelfth Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210 Voice 614.292.2814 Cell 614.638.3345 Fax 614.247.8849 |
|
|
RICHARD BURRY |
Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Brideau
There are two types of vibration; movement of the floor and movement of the air (acoustic vibration). The acoustic vibration is low frequency and generally only a problem with electron microscopes. In my experience air anti-vibration tables do a great job of reducing the floor vibration. Obviously there are limits, but a good air table should be part of any optical or confocal microscope installation.
Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Brideau <[hidden email]> Date: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:42 pm Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement To: [hidden email] > Vibration levels can be vaguely estimated; our builders were > able to > give us movement rates based on the likely deflections of the support > members of the building. The problem is that most > vibration is caused > by the activity of daily operations. As you say, foot > traffic can be > significant, and that is not something which is easy to > predict. We > went with heavy floated broadband-damped tables to try to at least > decently cover any possibility. It seems to have > worked. Other > sources include nearby roads and highways (does a bus route go > by your > building? How about trucking?), machinery (where is the > elevator and > air handler unit?), and construction. > > Craig > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Julian Smith III <[hidden email]> > Date: Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:21 AM > Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities > NOT located on ground floor/basement > To: [hidden email] > > [snip] I was sort of surprised during design/construction that the > architects seemed completely unable to predict building vibrations. > Hallway foot traffic during class changes turns out to be far > more of > a source of vibration than building mechanicals. > Julian > > > -- > BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 952942865) is spam: > Spam: > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=952942865&m=6f186b61ea8f&c=sNot > spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=952942865&m=6f186b61ea8f&c=n > Forget vote: > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=952942865&m=6f186b61ea8f&c=f---- > -------------------------------------------------- > END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > Richard W. Burry, Ph.D. Department of Neuroscience, College of Medicine Campus Microscopy and Imaging Facility, Director The Ohio State University Associate Editor, Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 277 Biomedical Research Tower 460 West Twelfth Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210 Voice 614.292.2814 Cell 614.638.3345 Fax 614.247.8849 |
|
|
Chris Tully |
Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
|
|
In reply to this post by RICHARD BURRY
I am not actually in an imaging facility, but some thoughts based on my experiences with microscopy and imaging, historic preservation, electricity and modern building science:
1) Yes, do make sure that your spaces (on what ever floor) are as far removed (or shielded) from the main electrical chase(s) as possible. This _MAY_ be achievable by deliberately grounding the embedded rebar in a concrete wall - check with your local EE department. In my no so humble opinion, there is nothing worse than having to work on a scope inside a Faraday cage because there is too much electrical interference... 2) If I were desiging a microscopy facility in a brand new building, I would seriously investigate the passive and active vibration isolation options for earthquake "proofing" buildings. I have seen every thing from a rubber and steel plate stack to active monitoring and shifting of a counter weight. My thought here is to vibration isolate the entire lab - depending on how many scopes you have and how many air tables you already have this may well be cost effective. I would think that something passive would be relatively cost effective and might go a long way towards simplifying your life down the road. Given that I have seen more than one confocal necessarily sitting on an air table in a basement lab, I would suggest this for any new facility being built from the ground up. I will also state that I have personally seen the effects of vibration in EVERY scope I have used - yes I tend to force the issue just to verify the quality of image images when I am not deliberately causing vibration. 3) Having worked in a Class 1000 clean room lab that was always under a slight positive pressure, there are pluses and minuses. On the plus side, almost no dust ever built up in side the positive pressure rooms. On the down side we had to go through an air lock room to avoid too strong of a draft out of the lab. We did have special synthetic fiber lab coats (no bunny suites) and we each had to bring in a pair of all leather shoes to keep in the locker room for use exclusively in the clean room. The upside for a micro facility would be less time spent cleaning dust off of equipment and worrying about dust covers. You could achieve all of this by specifying an ISO 6 (Formerly Class 1000) clean room. Even if you allowed people to come an go in street clothes/shoes, keeping a fresh sticky mat at the entrance would keep street dirt to a minimum and the filtering implied by a ISO 6 would help a lot too. Of course this would up the cost a bit... Chris Tully Microscopy and Image Analysis Expert [hidden email] 240-888-1021 http://www.linkedin.com/in/christully On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:45 PM, RICHARD BURRY <[hidden email]> wrote: Based on my experience with a new building, and electron microscopes, watch for the building electrical substation and major trunk electrical lines. These will generate huge magnetic fields! I had all the bases covered for vibration, cooling water and power supply, but did not think that the architect would put the electrical substation for a 10 story building next to the EM rooms. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Carol Heckman
The phase shift given by 500nm of ice would be ~1/3 lambda, which is
easily measurable. The tricky bit is keeping it frozen yet stopping it getting thicker, and I really don't know how you'll do that - there's obviously going to be a bit of engineering involved. What you really need is a quantitative interference microscope like the old Zeiss Jena Interphako, which is designed for just such measurements. There must be some modern equivalent - or you could probably make us an offer for ours. Nobody has touched it since I retired. Guy Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology by Guy Cox CRC Press / Taylor & Francis http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm ______________________________________________ Associate Professor Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon) Electron Microscope Unit, Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 ______________________________________________ Phone +61 2 9351 3176 Fax +61 2 9351 7682 Mobile 0413 281 861 ______________________________________________ http://www.guycox.net -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carol Heckman Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 3:53 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Quantification of phase contrast images Ralf- There is a reference to enhanced phase contrast in a recent paper. This might help, as the phase retardation introduced by water may be quite small. You can find it (open source) by searching Vasiliev and "enhanced phase contrast". Carol Center for Microscopy & Microanalysis Bowling Green State University ________________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ralf Zenke [[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 6:12 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Quantification of phase contrast images Dear list, For pre-observation of samples for electron microscopy we need to measure the thickness of amorphous ice (~500nm) on thin (~10nm) carbon meshes. We would like to use phase contrast (I think DIC could not be quantified in that experiment because of the homogeneous thickness of the ice layer). Is it possible to get reliable thickness values (accuracy of ca. 50nm) out of the gray values of the camera? Reference images without ice layers can easily be aquired. Are there any effects that might corrupt the measurements? I think it's at least neccessary to have a narrowband light source. Thanks to anyone who can give input on this! Nice regards, Ralf Ralf Zenke Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry Core Facility Am Klopferspitz 18 DE-82152 Martinsried near Munich GERMANY Phone: (+49) (89) 8578 3798 Fax: (+49) (89) 8578 2847 www.biochem.mpg.de<http://www.biochem.mpg.de> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date: 10/27/09 07:22:00 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Shawn Galdeen
Our facility has both electron and optical microscopes, so the
instrument rooms have to be blacked out. But we are on a sloping site so one of our largest sample preparation labs does have high windows, which helps. Other tricks to help the ambience ... we had a large fish-tank in one of the windowless labs, which did help. But that wouldn't be compatible with a lab where any bio-hazard or GM work is done. Also, we have a common room one floor up where there are windows and facilities to make tea and coffee. All users are welcome there and it is a boon when you are doing long sessions of sample prep. Guy Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology by Guy Cox CRC Press / Taylor & Francis http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm ______________________________________________ Associate Professor Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon) Electron Microscope Unit, Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 ______________________________________________ Phone +61 2 9351 3176 Fax +61 2 9351 7682 Mobile 0413 281 861 ______________________________________________ http://www.guycox.net -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Shawn Galdeen Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 5:59 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Windows These comments bring up a question I've long had regarding the intersection between the practice of microscopy and the business of running an imaging facility: Windows -- not the OS, but the objects themselves. It seems to me that one way to encourage return visits to a facility is by providing an environment that users find inviting, or at least not frightening. One easy way to do this is to have analysis areas or main lab spaces that are windowed. However, every room with windows is one that is necessarily restricted in terms of function (as Craig and Ammasi mention). While I understand that scientific concerns are paramount and questions of ambience should not matter, I've had more than one experience where users have told me that they would not return to a facility because it was 'too depressing'. Some may argue that what is depressing is their commitment to their projects, but we have little choice concerning motivation. I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to windows in a facility, but could some of you with more experience comment on the net benefit/cost? It would help me (and hopefully others) when thinking about such designs in future. Thanks, Shawn Shawn Galdeen, Ph.D. Research Support Specialist Bio-Imaging Resource Center Rockefeller University 1230 York Ave. New York, New York 10065 212.327.7487 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Craig Brideau wrote: If you have control over the construction/renovation of the room; don't put windows in it! Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t) <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello > I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the basement > or ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and also it > provides light proof if you would like to do lifetime imaging. > Otherwise, you have to hang curtains, etc., to cover the light leak. > First floor is ok, all other floors are not ok because of vibration of > the floor if someone hammer the wall the confocal scanner will go > crazy. > Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are > planning to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement in > another two years. > You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if > it is protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc. > Hope this helps. > > Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D. > Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI) Professor of Biology > and Biomedical Engineering Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd > University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22904 > Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab) Fax:434-982-5210; > Email:[hidden email] http://www.kcci.virginia.edu > ************************ > Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010 > http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php > ************************* No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date: 10/27/09 07:22:00 |
|
|
Richard Harris-6 |
Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Smith-6
Hi Adrian
I had the opportunity to build our facility from the ground up (so to speak). We are on the 3rd floor of a new building (the Biotron) and we have 2 TEMs, an SEM, a confocal and numerous widefield microscopes. By working with the architects, engineers and various contractors and making them understand our requirements we don't have vibration issues. The facility was designed to the vibrations requirements of the most sensitive piece of equipment (the TEMs). The floor are vibrationally isolated from the support columns and the rest of the building. It cost more in construction but has paid off downstream. I will admit we have had some leak issues but because they were anticipated (to a degree) damge was limited and recoverable. My advice is stay connected with the building process and make sure you voice issues as they arise. Take frequent trips through the building during construction. Rick, Richard Harris, Manager - Integrated Microscopy @ Biotron The Biotron - Center for Experimental Climate Change Research University of Western Ontario, London Ontario, CANADA. N6A 5B7 Ph. 519-661-2111 ext. 86780 Fax 519-661-3935 e-mail [hidden email] web: www.thebiotron.ca -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Adrian Smith Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:56 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement Hi all, The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a large new research building which will incorporate an (optical) cellular imaging facility. The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the facility located on the 4th floor. The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time the facility is built), super-resolution. (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new technologies) I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement - ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there are locations where that has been a failure or there have been unexpected complications etc. All feedback gratefully received. Regards, Adrian Smith Centenary Institute, Australia |
|
|
Keith Morris |
Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
|
|
In reply to this post by Timothy Feinstein
Hi all,
Regarding rooms, optical microscopes don't seem to mind at all being on the upper floors whether in the city or the countryside, although our EM systems were far more sensitive to vibration from traffic [our Hitachi low-voltage SEM could easily detect a lorry driving past the rural road outside at high mag*]. Most of our optical microscopes came with air-tables in any case, and for those without air tables we used heavy slabs of granite and anti-vibration rubber pads [for time-lapse]. When not touching a microscope just sitting on a bench, most vibration interference to the microscopes is from working on the desk it's sitting on and things like opening and closing the microscope room door, and doors slamming in the corridor outside, particularly when the microscope bench was screwed to the adjoining wall. At UCL London our facilities were very cramped, by very busy city centre roads, and located on the third floor in poorly converted labs, and vibration was not a problem for any system once we installed standard anti-vibrational tables and 'home-made' granite slabs. In fact I would say that by a busy urban road the ground floor at the front of the building front seems a poorer location for optical microscopes than 3 floors upwards, as they may be only a few feet from the juggernaut lorries rolling by. Many problems with optical systems have related to the [lack of] control of room temperatures did have serious XYZ focusing and stage drift effects on our microscopes, in particular when we initially used small stage incubators that didn't enclose the objectives and entire stage [non of our stages were motorized and so prone to XY drift]. Naturally vibration and room temperature changes most affects time-lapse and complex things like scanning confocal microscopes. Our molecular cytogenetic microscopes capture images at 1,000x mag for 8h every working day, but as they use fixed samples, the microscopes just sit on a standard heavy duty worktop [screwed to the wall] with the PC next to it, and have no anti-vibration features other than the supplied rubber feet - if the focus drifts or someone bangs the microscope we just refocus and then rapidly acquire the image. That said a small antivibration slab under the microscope would do no harm. All my optical microscope facilities have had standard industrial concrete floors, which seem perfectly adequate, ideal even, for optical microscope systems [I imagine an old building with suspended wooden floors would be a disaster, my 'new' home has these and now I can't walk by my HiFi record player without it jumping - perhaps some form rigid mounting to a wall would be preferred in this case, assuming a solid brick wall somewhere. In fact nearly all the very major pains of optical microscope facilities I have run have related to poor air conditioning systems** - poorly designed [cheap] temperature 'balanced' control more suited to offices, with vents dumping cold air over the microscope, users switching off the air conditioning as its 'cold' [after which it's 'hot']. Just about all the rooms we have used for microscopes have required upgrading the air-con temp controllers [at about £1000 per room] and things like bits of cardboard and sticky back plastic added for deflecting the cold air. You have to fight for decent temperature control though as the initial comment is often 'it's standard, nothing can be done mate' - whereas in fact a lot can be done to stabilise room temperatures if you pay for it [and microscope don't like room temperatures cycling by more than a few degrees, whatever the base room temp]. Regarding Tim's comments on flooding, I have experienced major flooding around 8 times [in the last 30 years] with our microscope facilities and only twice has it been due to a roof failure and external rainwater [both of those were during roof refurbishment]. Mostly it had been due to a failed water mains pipe, air conditioning problems pouring water from the ceiling, and blocked sewage pipes due to paper towels [yuk]. All my facilities were on the ground floor or above. Around twenty years ago our microscope room at Harwell lived with water seeping through the walls to a depth of a few inches over the weekend and we had to cope with this for over a month using water vacs and dehumidifiers as the 'roof main drain ducting had clearly failed and this was a very major repair' - actually it turned out to be leaking compression joint in a mains tap water pipe in the lab next door and was fixed in minutes! [it was behind fitted units, and only leaked our way]. I now always keep all floor PCs on little wheeled PC stands so that they raise a few inches above the floor just in case. We always cover the microscopes at night [and let the users throw the covers over the hot Hg arc lamp housing in the morning, if I don't get to them first] and so far we've never lost a microscope or PC [fungal/bacterial growth on internal microscope optics due to damp can finish off one]. Provided the water is removed promptly and dehumidifiers used things are fine in within a day [the air conditioning gets rid of the damp quickly anyway, providing it's safe to switch on]. So far the water ingress has run down the walls, seeped in from floor level, or poured into the centre of the room, and on major disasters we were lucky in that people working late always noticed the water pouring in and could man the pumps and get out the bin bags to cover everything in sight. We did lose a couple of PCs [a strange HP calculator thing and a Commodore PET] when our building was hit by lightning back in the early 1980s, I was pushing open the building front door at the time and remember it very well - it's the only time I've lost anything major imaging facilities wise. As Tim mentions a basement might not be so great during flooding [at lowest ours were always on the ground floor, and we had loose fitting doors to let the water run out underneath, limiting water depth on the floor to a few inches] - my uncles Ford Granada car was buried in a basement under 15 feet of water for two days when a major water mains burst at his local London multi-story car park and the car was naturally a write-off [it did start when the battery was recharged though]. However when we have had a serious flood recently due to building work we have been able to claim for things like engineers visits to service and verify the microscopes were fine using the builder's insurance. Hope this helps. Regards Keith *The Hitachi low-voltage SEM was originally housed in a special anti-vibrational room with a faraday cage built in, but on reorganization a few years later the SEM microscope was dumped into the ground floor of our building with the only modification to the new room being tin foil stuck to the windows [we did that ourselves]. The old purpose built microscope room was gutted and converted to offices, as part of Margaret Thatcher's drive for greater efficiency and accountability in Science. ** From my previous posting on air conditioning: "We had all sorts of similar air conditioning problems [our confocal rooms were a large lab subsequently walled up into 3 separate rooms with the air-conditioning ceiling air-in and air-out ducts ending up in separate rooms]. The Bio-Rad Radiance 2000 confocal room frequently chilled to below 16oC causing the [old style] Zeiss immersion oil to go into a cloudy lump. The exhaust from the Bio-Rad vented through a wall into the next room heating that up and sending the air chillers into a frenzy. Despite our buildings manager saying it was impossible, a visiting air-con engineer did rebalance the air-conditioning to raise the temp to a nominal 24oC [from 22oC] and that helped a great deal. You can also pay a £1,000 or so to get the main air temp control upgraded to a better system than the basic office one normally installed [was just a bit more electronics on the control bit] air con guys still havent discovered the Victorian thermostat though, its all that air flow balance stuff. Even with the room temp raised it did get very chilly by the Bio-Rad confocal and the OpenLab time-lapse Axiovert 100 that sat on the other side of the room. These two microscopes both had large stage 37oC incubators that fought against the Arctic wind as well. When the cold air hit the microscope, temp regulation and/or focus/stage drift suffered. I fitted large card right angle shields [~12 drop] to the sides of the ceiling air in vent which forced the cold air vertically down into the centre of the room, and prevented it blowing on the microscope stage [or the person sitting by the microscope, although we were less concerned about them]. Prior to that, the stages couldnt maintain 37oC. In addition we fitted a 1kW thermostatic wall electric fan heater to raise the temp of the room and help the incubators overnight. Plus the large stage 37oC incubators had bubble wrap Sellotaped on the outside, and additional mini always on heaters inside, to help the [underpowered] incubator air heaters to cope. When the Leica SP2 was going into a new room I insisted on a proper exhaust vent that took the laser cooling air off into the ceiling and into an air-con duct of some sort. The room was in a new building and I couldnt access it when it was being built [having just arrived, I was kept out of the loop, with a 'trust us, all will be well' and when I got to visit the room the air-con ducting was already in place - so fight to see the plans and keep an eye on the room construction]. Walked in when it was almost completed and saw that they had placed the cold air ceiling out vent right over where the microscope would have to go [nobody ever thinks to ask]. We had to seal off a lot of the cold air-out vent with tough tape stuff on the inside [so you couldnt see it] to block of the air flow to the microscope/air-table area. This was the room that then had the additional £1,000 upgrade on the air-con temp control. The Bio-Rad confocal was moved next door to the Leica and an exhaust tube fitted to take the laser exhaust air off into the ceiling and that duct. The cold air-in ceiling vent was in a different location [didnt blow on the microscope] and the Bio-Rad worked very well here, with the room temp sticking to around 22oC. Most problems after that were caused by users switching off the air-con [as it got too cold for them] and the room temp raising to apparently 37+oC on one occasion overnight [according to the min-max thermometer anyway] even with the laser exhaust vent to the ceiling, the room warmed up with the confocal on 24hr live-cell time-lapses. As Stephen points out the [argon] lasers generate about 3kW of heat when running and its venting that elsewhere that is the key to maintaining room temperature. Confocal engineers always say the confocal doesnt mind running in a room at any constant temp from 20 to 30oC, just as long as the room temperature doesnt fluctuate about. That said our large Zeiss 510 MetaHead laser control box doesnt have a laser exhaust ducting vent system like the Leica and Bio-Rad [it all vents out into the small room shared with two other microscopes]. We have an additional wall mounted air-con cooler fitted though which maintains the room temp to 22oC [although again users switch off the air-con as it gets too cold and noisy] I tell the confocal users to switch it back on [or their image quality will suffer]. This air-con unit points to the centre of the room and away from the microscopes. Its a shame they dont make microscopes with a mixture of alloys/metals so that they expand/contract uniformly with temperature fluctuations. I have measured a 40um drift in focus as a large stage incubator goes from 22oC to 37oC [Axiovert 100]." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Keith J. Morris, Molecular Cytogenetics and Microscopy Core, Laboratory 00/069 and 00/070, The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1865 287568 Email: [hidden email] Web-pages: http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/molecular-cytogenetics-and-microscopy -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Timothy Feinstein Sent: 26 October 2009 02:20 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement Hi Adrian, You might want to consider the possibility of flooding. My experience probably makes me a bit jaded, having rescued a confocal from indoor rain twice while studying for my doctorate, but it strikes me as an issues that could affect on which floor to situate a facility. Even given that newer buildings should have fewer problems (in theory at least...), when below ground level you can not control the integrity of nearby water mains. More experienced microscopists can better say whether this issue comes up often enough to affect your planning. Good luck and all the best, Tim Feinstein University of Pittsburgh > Hi all, > > The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a > large new research building which will incorporate an (optical) > cellular imaging facility. > > The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement > location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the > facility located on the 4th floor. > > The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical > microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time > the facility is built), super-resolution. > > (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new > technologies) > > I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how > important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement - > ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built > building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced > microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there > are locations where that has been a failure or there have been > unexpected complications etc. > > All feedback gratefully received. > > Regards, > > Adrian Smith > Centenary Institute, Australia > |
|
|
Adrian Smith-6 |
Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Tully
On 27/10/2009, at 1:39 PM, Chris Tully wrote:
> 3) Having worked in a Class 1000 clean room lab that was always > under a slight positive pressure, there are pluses and minuses. On > the plus side, almost no dust ever built up in side the positive > pressure rooms. On the down side we had to go through an air lock > room to avoid too strong of a draft out of the lab. We did have > special synthetic fiber lab coats (no bunny suites) and we each had > to bring in a pair of all leather shoes to keep in the locker room > for use exclusively in the clean room. The upside for a micro > facility would be less time spent cleaning dust off of equipment and > worrying about dust covers. You could achieve all of this by > specifying an ISO 6 (Formerly Class 1000) clean room. Even if you > allowed people to come an go in street clothes/shoes, keeping a > fresh sticky mat at the entrance would keep street dirt to a minimum > and the filtering implied by a ISO 6 would help a lot too. Of > course this would up the cost a bit... Positive pressure would seem to be problem if there potentially biohazardous samples being imaged? Regards, Adrian |
|
|
George McNamara |
Re: Windows ... user friendly environment
|
|
In reply to this post by Shawn Galdeen
Hi Shawn,
Windows for a fluorescence microscope facility are a waste of good office or general lab space. Temperature: I keep our Zeiss LSM510/UV confocal microscope room as cool as possible, ~20 C. I occasionally have users who mention the temperature. My response is that (1) I have measured the output of the lasers (and/or AOTF intensity control or other components) and they are only stable when the room is cool, and (2) I would be happy to add UM sweater rental to my price list if they'll pay the rent. If the PI likes the data you generate, they can motivate the depressed user or find a new employee. George p.s. none of the authors of the three Nature papers who published LSM510 data in the last two years complained about our windowless core being depressing or cold. At 02:59 PM 10/26/2009, you wrote: >These comments bring up a question I've long had regarding the >intersection between the practice of microscopy and the business of >running an imaging facility: Windows -- not the OS, but the objects >themselves. > >It seems to me that one way to encourage return visits to a facility >is by providing an environment that users find inviting, or at least >not frightening. One easy way to do this is to have analysis areas >or main lab spaces that are windowed. However, every room with >windows is one that is necessarily restricted in terms of function (as >Craig and Ammasi mention). While I understand that scientific >concerns are paramount and questions of ambience should not matter, >I've had more than one experience where users have told me that they >would not return to a facility because it was 'too depressing'. Some >may argue that what is depressing is their commitment to their >projects, but we have little choice concerning motivation. > >I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to windows in a >facility, but could some of you with more experience comment on the >net benefit/cost? It would help me (and hopefully others) when >thinking about such designs in future. > > >Thanks, > >Shawn > > >Shawn Galdeen, Ph.D. >Research Support Specialist >Bio-Imaging Resource Center >Rockefeller University >1230 York Ave. >New York, New York 10065 >212.327.7487 > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Craig Brideau wrote: > >If you have control over the construction/renovation of the room; >don't put windows in it! > >Craig > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t) ><[hidden email]> wrote: >>Hello >>I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the >>basement or ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and >>also it provides light proof if you would like to do lifetime >>imaging. Otherwise, you have to hang curtains, etc., to cover the >>light leak. First floor is ok, all other floors are not ok because >>of vibration of the floor if someone hammer the wall the confocal >>scanner will go crazy. >>Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are >>planning to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement >>in another two years. >>You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if >>it is protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc. >>Hope this helps. >> >>Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D. >>Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI) >>Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering >>Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd >>University of Virginia >>Charlottesville, VA 22904 >>Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab) >>Fax:434-982-5210; Email:[hidden email] >>http://www.kcci.virginia.edu >>************************ >>Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010 >>http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php >>************************* George McNamara, Ph.D. Image Core Manager Analytical Imaging Core Facility University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine Miami, FL 33136 [hidden email] [hidden email] 305-243-8436 office http://www.sylvester.org/AICF (Analytical Imaging Core Facility) http://www.sylvester.org/AICF/pubspectra.zip (the entire 2000+ spectra .xlsx file is in the zip file) http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara |
|
|
George McNamara |
Re: Quantification of phase contrast images
|
|
In reply to this post by Ralf Zenke
Hi Ralf,
You might contact IATIA ( http://www.iatia.com.au/contact/ ) sending images to evaluate their quantitative phase microscopy (QPm) software. You can read Ted Nugent's research papers in J Microscopy or other journals (see http://www.iatia.com.au/technology/papers.asp ) or IATIAs technology web pages, http://www.iatia.com.au/technology/insideQpi.asp George At 06:12 AM 10/26/2009, you wrote: Dear list, George McNamara, Ph.D. Image Core Manager Analytical Imaging Core Facility University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine Miami, FL 33136 [hidden email] [hidden email] 305-243-8436 office http://www.sylvester.org/AICF (Analytical Imaging Core Facility) http://www.sylvester.org/AICF/pubspectra.zip (the entire 2000+ spectra .xlsx file is in the zip file) http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara |
|
|
In reply to this post by George McNamara
it's possible to control the microscope remotely, keeping both the
sample and user in optimal environments /Johan George McNamara wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > Windows for a fluorescence microscope facility are a waste of good > office or general lab space. > > Temperature: I keep our Zeiss LSM510/UV confocal microscope room as > cool as possible, ~20 C. I occasionally have users who mention the > temperature. My response is that (1) I have measured the output of the > lasers (and/or AOTF intensity control or other components) and they > are only stable when the room is cool, and (2) I would be happy to add > UM sweater rental to my price list if they'll pay the rent. > > If the PI likes the data you generate, they can motivate the depressed > user or find a new employee. > > > George > p.s. none of the authors of the three Nature papers who published > LSM510 data in the last two years complained about our windowless core > being depressing or cold. > > > At 02:59 PM 10/26/2009, you wrote: >> These comments bring up a question I've long had regarding the >> intersection between the practice of microscopy and the business of >> running an imaging facility: Windows -- not the OS, but the objects >> themselves. >> >> It seems to me that one way to encourage return visits to a facility >> is by providing an environment that users find inviting, or at least >> not frightening. One easy way to do this is to have analysis areas >> or main lab spaces that are windowed. However, every room with >> windows is one that is necessarily restricted in terms of function (as >> Craig and Ammasi mention). While I understand that scientific >> concerns are paramount and questions of ambience should not matter, >> I've had more than one experience where users have told me that they >> would not return to a facility because it was 'too depressing'. Some >> may argue that what is depressing is their commitment to their >> projects, but we have little choice concerning motivation. >> >> I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to windows in a >> facility, but could some of you with more experience comment on the >> net benefit/cost? It would help me (and hopefully others) when >> thinking about such designs in future. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Shawn >> >> >> Shawn Galdeen, Ph.D. >> Research Support Specialist >> Bio-Imaging Resource Center >> Rockefeller University >> 1230 York Ave. >> New York, New York 10065 >> 212.327.7487 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Craig Brideau wrote: >> >> If you have control over the construction/renovation of the room; >> don't put windows in it! >> >> Craig >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t) >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hello >>> I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the >>> basement or ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and >>> also it provides light proof if you would like to do lifetime >>> imaging. Otherwise, you have to hang curtains, etc., to cover the >>> light leak. First floor is ok, all other floors are not ok because >>> of vibration of the floor if someone hammer the wall the confocal >>> scanner will go crazy. >>> Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are >>> planning to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement >>> in another two years. >>> You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if >>> it is protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc. >>> Hope this helps. >>> >>> Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D. >>> Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI) >>> Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering >>> Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd >>> University of Virginia >>> Charlottesville, VA 22904 >>> Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab) >>> Fax:434-982-5210; Email:[hidden email] >>> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu >>> ************************ >>> Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010 >>> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php >>> ************************* > > > > > > > > George McNamara, Ph.D. > Image Core Manager > Analytical Imaging Core Facility > University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine > Miami, FL 33136 > [hidden email] > [hidden email] > 305-243-8436 office > http://www.sylvester.org/AICF (Analytical Imaging Core Facility) > http://www.sylvester.org/AICF/pubspectra.zip (the entire 2000+ spectra > .xlsx file is in the zip file) > http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara |
|
|
Craig Brideau |
Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Smith-6
Definitely a conflict of intent there! All you can do is have a
filtered airlock in a situation like that, with heavy filtration in the lab itself. The bio-hazard requirements would have to take precedence over the dust control requirements, but I would suppose it could be implemented in a way to satisfy both needs. Craig On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Adrian Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > Positive pressure would seem to be problem if there potentially biohazardous > samples being imaged? > > Regards, > > Adrian > |
|
|
Craig Brideau |
Re: Windows ... user friendly environment
|
|
In reply to this post by mahogny
This can be done, but by not physically being there you can risk
damaging things under certain scenarios. If you are doing something like perfusion of a tissue sample, for instance, such remote work is asking for a flooded microscope. I'm sure you all can think of other situations where an unattended sample/microscope could cause problems. On the other hand, if your experiment doesn't fall into any of these categories or you have ample other safeguards, then go for it. Just be aware of the risks... Craig On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Johan Henriksson <[hidden email]> wrote: > it's possible to control the microscope remotely, keeping both the sample > and user in optimal environments > > /Johan |
|
|
Emmanuel Gustin |
Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Brideau
From my experience with microscopes in controlled airflow environments,
BSL-2 and BSL-3: Yes, it can be a bit like operating your instruments in the inside of a vacuum cleaner. However, the things to take care of are not just the extra sources of dust, but also static electricity. The heavily filtered air often is rather dry, which creates good conditions for the build-up of static electricity, and that usually increases the amount of dust that sticks to samples, especially in plastic containers. It can also interfere with the operation of instruments. A nasty interference of biosafety with imaging equipment are powdered gloves, which are easier to put on -- especially over another pair of gloves, if that is required. But they usually have liberal amounts of powder outside as well as inside, so everything people touch then looks as if a team of mad forensic scientists has been dusting for fingerprints. Unrelated to dust: I have the habit of cleaning the oculars with the anti-fog cleaning fluid that we are supplied with for our safety glasses. Otherwise the oculars fog over quickly when I try to use a microscope while wearing a surgical mask, because some of your breath always escapes around your nose. Emmanuel -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau Sent: zondag 1 november 2009 22:32 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement Definitely a conflict of intent there! All you can do is have a filtered airlock in a situation like that, with heavy filtration in the lab itself. The bio-hazard requirements would have to take precedence over the dust control requirements, but I would suppose it could be implemented in a way to satisfy both needs. Craig On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Adrian Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > Positive pressure would seem to be problem if there potentially biohazardous > samples being imaged? > > Regards, > > Adrian > |
|
|
|
|
|
The simplest and most widely used stain for OCs is the TRAP stain. Usually TRAP+ multinuclear cells with more than 3 or more nuclei are considered as osteoclasts if your cell culture had RANKL or TNFa.
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:21:51 -0800 From: [hidden email] Subject: osteoclasts To: [hidden email]
Un avatar à votre image ? Créez votre mini-moi ! |
|
|
|
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |