How much improvement can be accomplished for the structure resolution, if we use micro-focus synchrotron beam instead of a regular x-ray beam? What about another setting of crystallization conditions?
It all depends on the nature of your crystals, and what you need to achieve.
In general, it is ideal to fill the X-ray beam with your crystal if you can, so that your signal will be greater compared to the noise. The great advantage of microfocus beams is that they can allow a crystal too small for traditional beams to fill the X-ray beam. The consequence is that more diffraction would be seen from the same crystal compared to what a traditional beam would provide.
So, what you really need to think about is how big your crystal is, and how this compares to the beam size that you would otherwise use.
The other issue to consider is radiation damage. As the microfocus packs in more photons per unit area, radiation damage will happen to the crystal at the point that the beam hits than in a traditional beam. This may mean that your crystal does not last as long.
This sounds like the sort of problem where you might find it easiest to contact the microfocus beamline scientists at your favourite synchrotron. They should be best able to assess whether your problem will benefit most from microfocus, or a different crystallisation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling