[3dem] CP3 versus EM-GP for SPA
mikestrauss13 at crystal.harvard.edu
Tue Sep 19 11:07:54 PDT 2017
we have a Leica system for plunging. Most of our projects are SPA, and the
results are fine. It takes some getting used to, and the results seem to
be considerably less consistent than the Vitrobot. Once you get to know
your system, and learn to adjust the various positions and offsets, it
behaves well enough.
One thing I would warn you of is the long bake-out time on the Leica
plunger. The cryogen area is inside the system, and cannot be accessed by
the user in any practical way, so if you want to have multiple users in the
day, they need to be right after one another, or well-separated. Our
system has also had troubles with the humidifier unit, where the
(distilled) water level has to be perfect, otherwise it will not work
properly. But this too is a matter of getting to know your system.
I have very little practical experience with the CP3, so I can't comment.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Laura Kim <kimyaunhee at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi 3DEM,
> We are replacing our Gatan CP3, which is quite old and on its way out. We
> are debating between the purchase of a replacement Gatan CP3 or a Leica
> EM-GP for our cryo-EM facility, where the majority of projects are single
> particle. We like that the EM-GP has temperature control and does not
> require gas hookups, but have heard that most labs using the EM-GP are
> doing filament-type projects and not SPA. Can any labs using the EM-GP for
> SPA comment on this? Do people have a preference for one over the other for
> SPA? Please let me know, thanks.
> 3dem mailing list
> 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the 3dem