Sample holding capacity

Sample Holding Capacity (SHC). SHC can be defined as the minimum volume of scintillator required to keep sample in a homogeneous form, suitcible for liquid scintillation counting. Miniaturizing requires considerable sample holding capacity for various types of biological samples. 

Quench Resistance. The sample holding capacity should be combined with a reasonable counting efficiency in order to maintain a high sample throughput and accuracy. 

A comparison of the sample holding capacity between the classical and the miniaturized systems is shown in the following phase diagrams. The two upper ones show a new and the two below a typical classical system. Compatibility of phosphate - buffered saline (0.01 M - 0.5 M) in a liquid scintillator is shown as a function of concentration and counting... 

FIGURE 3. Sample holding capacity versus temperature for new (a, b) and classical (c, d) scintillators. 

Additional data is shown in the following graphs which illustrate the counting efficiency as a function of the sample holding capacity. Note that the vertical lines indicate scintillator - sample ratio of 10+1, 5+1 and 3+1 ml, respectively. 

Further miniaturizing under half of the present volume is possible (b), but only with somewhat lower counting efficiencies. Classical products (c and d) show less quench resistance and sample holding capacity. 

EFFECTS OF EMULSIFIER BLENDING ON SAMPLE HOLDING CAPACITY OF SCINTILLATION COCKTAILS... 

At some sampling times, the organic treatment had lower bulk density and higher water holding capacity than the conventional treatment (Werner 1997). 

Total moisture of coal Ultimate analysis of coal Ultimate analysis of coke Chlorine in coal and coke Phosphorus in coal and coke Arsenic in coal and coke Analysis of coal ash and coke ash Determination of moisture-holding capacity of hard coal General introduction and methods for reporting results Determination of total moisture of coke Proximate analysis, determination of moisture content of the general analysis test sample... 

HilgarcTs technique (1906) for the determination of moisture-holding capacity is as follows A layer of soil 1 cm thick is placed in a screen-bottom cup and saturated with water by capillarity. The sample is then drained by placing it in a saturated atmosphere for 24 hrs, after which the moisture is determined in the usual way. 

Power ultrasound has also been found to be effective in the extraction of protein from meat [58]. Ultrasound disrupts the meat myofibrils and this releases a sticky exudate which binds the meat together. The binding strength, water holding capacity, product color, and yields were examined after treatment either with salt tumbling, sonication, or both. Samples which received both salt treatment and sonication were superior in all qualities. Similar results were obtained from a study of the effect of sonication on cured rolled ham [59]. Ultrasonic treatment enhanced the extraction of myofibrillar proteins leading to an increase in the strength of the reformed meat. 

Edifenphos was degraded in flooded soil samples more rapidly than in nonflooded soil at 50% water holding capacity. A Pseudomonas strain utilised edifenphos as the sole carbon source. Soil sterilisation retarded degradation of edifenphos (Rajaram and Sethunathan, 1976). 

Water Holding Capacity by Filtration. The samples were added to crucibles that had been weighed at room temperature and hot (100° C). Deionized distilled H2O was added to the sample with backpressure for 2 hrs, then filtered under full vacuum for 1 minute finally the crucible was wiped to remove excess water and weighed. The hydrated sample was dried at 100° C overnight and weighed. Grams of water per dry gram of sample was determined. 

Complex samples, such as compost and soil could either inhibit or enhance the growth or reproduction rate of the test organisms compared with a synthetic control. The reasons for inhibition could be some physical properties, such as water-holding capacity or particle size, or even pH value or salinity. The reasons for increased metabolic activity could be organic (earthworm) or mineral (plants and algae) nutrients. In such cases it is very difficult to detect any chemical inhibition apart from the beneficial effects of nutrients if real samples, which have degraded polymers, are compared with synthetic controls. 

---