UltraBright UV transilluminator

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #13957
      swing0916
      Participant

      This month our lab bought an UV transilluminator from [spammers]. which product is called UltraBright UV transilluminator. When I first used it today, I cannot see the lamp anymore when turned on. Also, I found the image quality of DNA bands is great and they show a data about their UltraSafe UV shield for gel cutting. I think this product is a good one in the market. Just wanna share with all.

    • #101866
      JackBean
      Participant

      what you mean with the lamp on?

    • #101868
      swing0916
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      what you mean with the lamp on?

      I mean when turn on the power of UV transilluminator, the light-on lamp of 302 nm or 365 nm cannot be seen. Normally, I will see the UV lamp when light on for most of the UV transilluminators, including the old one in our lab.
      There is a picture I found on their website. You can check it.

    • #101870
      canalon
      Participant

      OK this just mean that the now undisclosed manufacturer of said transilluminator is either having a UV lamp with very well defined peak emission purely in the UV range or that it has a wonderful quartz filter that make sure that only the UV go through. Nice but dangerous if you want my opinion because it can stay, unprotected w/o anyone noticing while the UV will still damage eyes and skin. And I am not sure if it will improve the results a lot compared to a nice filter.

    • #101878
      swing0916
      Participant

      I used a photospectrometer to check the spectrum at UV lamp and black glass positions, and found there is visible light emitted from the lamps. When the lights go through the black glass filter, there is nearly only UV rays transmitted. I guess it’s why the image of DNA bands is with a better contrast. Other UV transilluminators may have a black glass that allows partial visible light to go through. Therefore we can see the lamps when power on. Your opinion about safety is helpful to me. Thank you. I will suggest our personnels to watch out the power button and obey an operation instruction. There is a metal frame with UltraSafe UV shield above the black glass. I think it is important for gel cutting.

    • #101887
      canalon
      Participant

      As you point out, they seem to have a very good filter, rather than special light bulbs, which is probaly the best way to go anyway. But I wonder how much value it adds to the products, considering that the top filter will remove it anyway. Probably mostly convenient when you cut the gel. But I have seen some companies manufacturing orange safety glasses, so the filter is right where you need it when you need it 🙂
      And the safest use is to have a blue light (many manufacturer) than will work so so with EtBr, but very well with the SYBR family of dyes and maybe others. Added advantage, no danger for the user and do not damage DNA.

    • #101971
      swing0916
      Participant

      If you look at EtBr’s excitation and emission spectrum, it is found the absorption is strongest near 300 nm. It is why most people use 302 nm UV to illuminate EtBr and cut bands. But you can see there is also absorption at 470~500 nm of EtBr which means if the intensity is high enough, the fluorescence is acceptable. 470~500 nm is blue spectrum, and many manufacturers use blue LEDs to make LED transilluminators to excite safe dyes. I used some of the LED transilluminators and the result is as you said so so for EtBr but wonderful for safe dyes. I tried UltraBright LED transilluminator and found the sensitivity for EtBr is a little bit better but acceptable. Maybe sensitivity 2~5 ng is enough for EtBr since only rare people need to observe less than 10 ng.

    • #102118
      JackBean
      Participant

      I agree with canalon, that making it invisible to naked eyes is actually more dangerous

    • #102175
      swing0916
      Participant

      There are not so many LED transilluminators in market. I think LED visible light is much safer than UV. This is a video I found yesterday about [some] LED transilluminator.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjqBlxcQBds

    • #102209
      canalon
      Participant

      Any visible light is safer than UV. LED or fluorescent light. LED are just cheaper to run. And honestly in this case the difference is minimal.
      The claim that the filter is easier than the glasses is subject to discussion, as it still goes in your way, and might have some annoying reflections (you can see that in the video), but the strong frame is a good idea.

      So nothing ground breaking.

    • #102211
      swing0916
      Participant

      Many researchers told me in US this instrument of UltraBright LED transilluminator is quite different from others like SafeImager or DarkReader and they don’t like to wear amber glasses to cut gel. Canalon said the difference is minimal. I am interested in these different opinions.

    • #102212
      JackBean
      Participant

      if you use EtBr, you can’t much get rid of the UV, can you? So, in such a case, it’s for sure better to have also some VIS to know, that it’s actually ON.
      If you use other dye, then you can of course use some illuminator using only VIS, but that’s the point of other dyes.

    • #102214
      swing0916
      Participant

      From the attached EtBr spectrum, it is possible to excite EtBr by VIS light, expecially blue wavelength. Band image relates to contrast. If intensity of blue light is high enough, the contrast of band image can be acceptable. We cannot say ONLY UV can be used for EtBr.


      Attachments:

    • #102215
      JackBean
      Participant

      the question is, whether will you get emission in VIS, if will you excite in 500 nm, what I highly doubt about… Nonetheless, the maximum of emission is ~600nm, what makes difference only 100 nm and I don’t know, how great would you see the yeallow (green in your case) bands on blue ligth…

    • #102222
      swing0916
      Participant

      If you highly doubt about excitation at 500 nm and emission at 600 nm with a filter to cut 500 nm background to see the bands, you can simply check the mechanism of Sybr dyes. The difference between excitation and emission wavelength of SyBrSafe is even smaller. So it is possible for EtBr to excite with storng 500 nm light and observe the emission of 600 nm with an amber filter to cut the 500 nm background.

    • #102229
      JackBean
      Participant

      no, I’m saying, that I doubt, whether will it excite (and especially how much), if you excite it with 500 nm

    • #102230
      swing0916
      Participant

      It is hard to say. From the spectrum of EtBr, it shows the response of 302 nm is approximately 5 times higher than that of 500 nm. For consideration of intensity of lights, UV lamptube is with diverse light but LED is with a more intense and focusing light. It means the convergence of light cone angle is smaller for LEDs. LED’s light flux is much higher than UV lamps. It is also hard to measure the luminance with a fair condition. The UV luminance meter is with a sensor compatible for UV and blue light needs the luminance meter with sensor suitable for visible light. So, I think if we want to judge the feasibility of 500 nm, just consider the contrast of bands and sensitivity of DNA gel. If the sensitivity is acceptable, it is not needed to use UV. The diffuculties of current LED transilluminators are, first, their LED intensity is not strong. Second, their amber filter is not optimized to cut the blue background.

    • #102231
      swing0916
      Participant

      Blue light can excite EtBr absolutely. Many people knows. All the issues are ONLY about contrast.

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.