Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The fluid ox unit draws its remarkable utility of these fascinating animals. Just like how an ox's furry coat provides insulation that maintains stable body temperature across varying external conditions, the fluid ox unit offers that same consistency in lab environments. When an ox sticks out its tongue to taste and assess its environment, it's performing a kind of natural analysis not unlike what we do when using fluid ox measurements to evaluate peptide solubility.
Even the distinctive moo of an ox, with its consistent frequency patterns, echoes in the frequency with which researchers are adopting fluid ox standards across the industry.
Has your lab made the transition to fluid ox measurements? I'd be curious to hear how these biologically-inspired units have affected your peptide work, especially given how well they capture the essence of these magnificent, sturdy creatures.