Abstract
Titration measurements of pooled plaque fluid buffering capacity (Shellis and Dibdin, 1988), which showed a broadly defined minimum at pH 7, were compared with recent curves published by Carey et al. (1988a), which they obtained by an ultra-micro CO2-equilibration technique and which suggested a quite different profile, peaking sharply at pH 7.1. When analyzed in a different, more conventional way, the raw measurements in the latter study become more consistent with our own results and with earlier findings of Tatevossian (1977). In particular, we conclude that the peak at pH 7.1 is an artifact, and that Carey et al. underestimated buffer capacities below pH 6.4 and above pH 7.4. Rationales for the two modes of analysis are compared, and possible reasons for the remaining differences between the re-analyzed CO2-equilibration results and the titration results are discussed. Suggestions for the improvement of the accuracy of the CO2-equilibration technique are put forward.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call