. 2014 Feb 20;20(9):693–702. doi: 10.1089/ten.tec.2013.0571

Table 2.

Comparison of ELS Recovery at 24 Hours After Thawing Using Different Warming Rates

Thawing method	Time taken to thaw (min)	Viability (%)	Viable cell number (10⁶ nuclei/mL alginate)	Function (μg AFP/24 h)
Unfrozen control	–	99.5±0.6	17.7±0.9	15.3±2.8
37°C water	1.75±0.5	97.8±0.5^***	14.4±1.2^**	8.7±1.8^*
20°C water	2.42±0.5	93.2±1.7^***^#	14.1±0.9^**	7.5±0.3^**
20°C air	12.92±0.2	92.7±3.1^***^,#	9.3±1.0^***^,##,∼∼	6.5±0.9^**^,#
4°C air	24.5±4.7	90.9±4.9^***^,#	8.3±1.4^***^,###,∼∼	5.8±0.5^**^,#

ELS were cooled in cryovials using the EF600. The rate of cooling was 1°C/min and cholesterol was used as ice nucleant in all samples. Following cooling, the cryovials were warmed using four different methodologies: 37°C water; 20°C water; 20°C air; and 4°C water to obtain a range of warming rates. The times taken to thaw the cryovials using these four methodologies is given in column 2 (n=2, mean±range). ELS recovery (viability, viable cell numbers, and function) 24 h after thawing was compared to unfrozen control. These data demonstrate that ELS recovery is greatest when rapid warming rates are applied. n=5±SD. ^*p<0.05, ^**p<0.01, ^***p<0.005 compared to unfrozen control. ^#p<0.05, ^##p<0.01, ^###p<0.005 compared to ELS thawed in 37°C water. ^∼∼p<0.01 compared to ELS thawed in 20°C water.