I try using chloral hydrate to analyze the anatomy of leaf powder (as the method told me to do). But I want to see the type of its stomata. After dropped the chloral hydrate to leaf powder on the object glass. I heated it by passing the object glass through fire for several times until it is quite dry. But still can not see any stomata, just its upper/lower epidermis. Is there any steps I did wrong?
Hello Ms. Yuswandi,
I haven’t worked on botanical samples since my early undergraduate days, but I do remember a very simple, not very professional, method that we’d used to look at stomata. We applied a very thin layer of vaseline to the leaf surface, waited for it to dry, then carefully pealed it off. Stomatal imprints were clearly visible on the vaseline layer under a light microscope. It would show you the approximate shape and dimensions of the stomata. Would that allow you to type them?
I'll try for my future teaching. But I wonder, what if the botanical samples are dry matter? Like dried folium.. Will this method still work?
I’ve never tried it with dry leaves, but I think it’d work just as well. You won’t have very high resolution and accuracy, but you’d be able to make out stomata, I think. I’d be interested to know if it works for you. Good luck!
So, for the conclusion on what I have done, the dry leaves powder with chloral hydrate 70% sure give low resolution and accuracy. A lot of amylum and protein were removed so it is easier to see the anatomy of the plant, but the sample gave a bit brown shade. Plus, the sample is powder, it became harder to differentiate every part of the plant. If lucky enough, you will get the stomata but it has to be the epidermis part of the leaves powder. It was hard for me to find it becase every part had already mixed altogether in the powder. If you want to make the best one and easier, stick to the fresh or wet one. But sure, in lab, if you got sample from supplier it is often dry leaves. Darren Tan
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Anatomy