neutrino
International Hazard
Posts: 1583
Registered: 20-8-2004
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: oscillating
|
|
Test tubes vs. Culture tubes
I’m looking at a company’s catalog and want to get some test/culture tubes for reactions and forming into ampoules. I’m not sure whether to go
with test tubes or culture tubes, though. A pack of culture tubes contains over 3 times as many tubes as a pack of test tubes. The tubes the same,
however: same size, same cost (per pack), same type of glass… I get the feeling that there is something I’m missing something here. Why are the
culture tubes so much cheaper?
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
I don't think the culture tubes have the rolled lip. Also my guess is you don't normally place them in stressful conditions like high heat
and corrosive chemicals. They may be intended to be disposable. Is the wall thickness the same?
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
neutrino
International Hazard
Posts: 1583
Registered: 20-8-2004
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: oscillating
|
|
No, it doesn’t say anything about the wall thicknesses. The beaded rim is insignificant. Actually, I made a mistake: they're all Kimax. The
only real difference I see is that the test tubes are Spec E982, while the cuture tubes are Spec. E438, class B. Does anyone here have experience with these standards?
edit: Yes, they are meant to be disposable.
[Edited on 29-3-2005 by neutrino]
|
|
|
kryss
Hazard to Self
Posts: 77
Registered: 11-7-2003
Location: N Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Make sure you get autoclavable ones they'll withstand stress better. I think the reason they work out cheaper is down to mass production - a lot
of them are used in microbiology labs.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
