Lauro

I just answered this question.

My Score PASS  

I must be missing something.  Slide 48 lists that the zeta potential is inversely proportional to the ionic strength of the medium and density of the ionic cloud.  That would mean that a low-ionic strength solution (LISS) increases zeta potential.  Since the zeta potential is basically an indicator of electrostatic repulsion between similarly charged particles, that would mean that LISS would increase the electrostatic repulsion between RBCs, which, I believe, is not the case.
I guess I'll have to go back and brush up on my chemistry.

I just answered this question.

My Score PASS  

I just answered this question.

My Score PASS  

Tests on the adsorbed serum (with ZZAP-treated cells) give confidence that the are no underlying alloantibodies to common antigens. However, the use of allogeneic cells risks removal of a cold-reactive alloantibody to a high incidence antigen, e.g. anti-Vel, -PP1pK. A low risk, but still concerning.
Does you facility also test the ZZAP-treated patient cells (now presumably DAT-negative) back against the patient's own serum ? This is ultimate proof that the cold-reactive antibody is an AUTOantibody and adds more confidence in the results of the adsorption with allogenic cells.
I may be opening a can of worms here, but.....I question the use of ZZAP in this scenario. In this case, the adsorption used (presumably DAT-negative) allogenic cells. ZZAP was not required to "reduce the DAT and enhance antibody uptake" - which is a true statement about performing AUTOadsorptions with DAT-positive cells. I appreciate that the enzyme in ZZAP enhances the efficiency of the adsorption, but the DTT component is not necessary for most alloadsorptions, and can actually confuse the users. I suspect the answer/policy is related to ZZAP being commercially available, rather than in a well-founded technical reason.