Skip to main content
. 2014 Jan 18;224(3):316–344. doi: 10.1111/joa.12160

Table 6.

Comparative table of different techniques.

Technique Advantages Disadvantages Long-term storage Teaching (dissection)
Salafia (c. 1927) Longterm storage Toxic Extremely well, when the coffin is sealed Not tested
Kaiserling (Pulvertaft, 1950) Good preservation of colour and form Only for isolated specimens Not applicable Not applicable
Jores (1896, 1913) Easy storage No data available Satisfactory Satisfactory
Woodburne & Lawrence (1952) Very active as fungicidal agent; soft and plastic; cheap Medium brown colour No data available Highly satisfactory
Peters (1956) Good preservation of intestines; does not affect the dissector's skin; odourless; objects sty smooth and elastic; colour-preserving No data available Possible Satisfactory
Erskine (1961) Soft and flexible, less exsiccation No data available Satisfactory Satisfactory
Richins et al. (1963) Decreased rigidity; increased bactercidity and fungicidity; less browning No data available Successful for 2 years No data available
Dayton et al. (1965) No data available No data available No data available No data available
Beck (1966) No data available No data available No data available No data available
Tutsch (1975) Cheap; odourless No data available No data available Satisfactory
Bradbury & Hoshino (1978) Moderate degrees of movability […] and adequate degree of hardness […] for dissection No adequate fixation of brains No data available Satisfactory
Platzer et al. (1978) Increased fungicidity; cheap No data available Almost unlimited, when vacuum packed No data available
Logan (1983) Soft preservation; obviates excessive noxious fumes No data available Satisfactory Facilitates micro-dissection
Frølich et al. (1984) Soft and flexible Slight odour, headache, drowsiness; mild eye, nose and throat irritation Up to 10 years ‘Suitable’
Frewein et al. (1987) Smooth, colour-preserving Fluid accumulations No data available Satisfactory
Ikeda et al. (1988) ‘Well fixed’ No data available No data available Satisfactory
O'Sullivan & Mitchell (1993) Formaldehyde vapour levels below COSHH limits; improved tissue preservation; more nature coloration No data available Proved up to 2.5 years Satisfactory
Macdonald & MacGregor (1997) Less toxic Grey hue of skin and muscles No data available Satisfactory up to 6 month
Coleman & Kogan (1998) Excellent preservative properties; minimal structural distortion; tissue supple; little desiccation; natural colours No data available No data available Satisfactory
Thiel (1992, 2002) High colour preservation, smooth and flexible Expensive; Disintegration of muscular tissue; limited time for dissection No data available High acceptance
Powers (2003) No data available No data available No data available No data available
Silva et al. (2007) Laskowski: flexible Modified Larssen: good coloration, odourless, in vivo-like flexibility Laskowski: dark, loss of tissue texture, skin desquamation, odour No data available Laskowski: less suitable for skin or oral cavity surgeries Modified Larssen: well accepted by students
Barton et al. (2009) Smooth No data available No data available High acceptance
Mills (2010) High mould preventiong No data available No data available No data available
Al-Hayani et al. (2011) No structural distortion, not colour changes Hardening outside the tank; > 2 days for re-softening When waxed, possible No data available
Anichkov et al. (2011) Natural appearance, odourless No data available Up to 1.5 years No data available
Janczyk et al. (2011a) Neutral smell Yellowish coloration; corrosion; Disintegration of abdominal organs Up to 1 year Limited usability
Hammer et al. (2012) Flexible tissues, aesthetic appearance; less toxic Expensive Up to 3 years No data available
Shi et al. (2012) Less toxic, good preservative properties, low volatility Up to 2 years No data available
Goyri-O'Neill et al. (2013) Good coloration and flexibility No data available No data available (good short term preservation ≤ 6 month) No data available