Back to all available

A comparative analysis of three distinct rehydrating solutions for addressing liver tissue desiccation resulting from dehydration failure

pathology
histology

Abstract

Background. Limited information is available concerning repair by rehydration after desiccation due to failure of the dehydrator.

Methods. Three common rehydrating solutions were compared. The liver specimens, after 24 hours of routine fixation by 10% formalin, were manually dehydrated with anhydrous ethanol and left to air dry for eight hours. The specimens were then immersed in three distinct rehydrating solutions for a duration of either 12 hours or 24 hours. After the rehydration, dehydration, and embedding processes were completed, the specimens were sectioned and stained. Then, they were observed under a microscope to ascertain the recovery effect of the three different repair solutions.

Results. The dried liver tissues were restored in all specimens soaked in one of the three repair solutions, with the 24-hour group demonstrating superior results in comparison to the 12-hour group. The Gordon’s solution exhibited the most pronounced repair effect, while the Sandison’s solution and Formol-Glycerol solution also demonstrated repair efficacy, albeit with residual issues.

Discussion. The results indicated that, irrespective of the type of restorative solution employed, the tissues exhibited recovery; however, the restoration of their morphological effects was not the same. The 24-hour group demonstrated a superior level of tissue repair following a 24-hour submersion when compared to the 12-hour group. Of the three rehydrating solutions, Gordon's solution was found to be the most effective in promoting tissue repair following a 24-hour submersion.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].