. 2016 Jun 8;5(2):16. doi: 10.3390/microarrays5020016

Table 3.

Comparison of the best blocking solution for nine solid supports.

Slide	Blocking Solution	Background Intensity ⁽¹⁾	Background Homogeneity ⁽²⁾	Spot Intensity ⁽³⁾	Spot Size (μm)	Spot Morphology ⁽⁴⁾
Black MaxiSorp	5% (w/v) milk PBS	500	+ + +	11,600	125–140	+ +
Epoxy glass	0.5% (v/v) Tween-20 PBS	800	− −	30,900	130–140	+
Epoxy polymer	0.5% (v/v) Tween-20 PBS	250	+	14,700	130–150	+ + +
GAPSII	5% (w/v) BSA PBS	1100	− − −	6300	150–160	+ +
Nexterion H	1% (w/v) milk TBS	200	+	8900	60–120	− −
Nexterion P	5% (w/v) BSA PBS	150	+ +	5300	60–170	− − −
NHS glass	0.5% (v/v) Tween-20 PBS	350	−	13,900	70–160	+
NHS polymer	1% (w/v) milk TBS	300	−	1400	60–160	+ +
Silane-Prep	1% (w/v) BSA PBS	700	− − −	3700	160–170	−

⁽¹⁾ The mean intensity (RFU) of the non-specific background binding intensity measured at four randomly-selected positions (70% PMT gain and 70% laser power); ⁽²⁾ the background homogeneity is graded from best (+ + +) to worst (− − −); ⁽³⁾ mean spot signal intensity (RFU) for anti-C1q, anti-C3, anti-C4, anti-CD40, anti-IL-8, anti-properdin and anti-VEGF (70% PMT gain and 70% laser power); ⁽⁴⁾ the spot morphology is graded from best (+ + +) to worst (− − −).