CACrown ArchivesHistory · sources · collections
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Good's buffers

buffering agents for biochemical and biological research

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionFeb 28, 2026
Entity authorityQ4100432
Source-derived summary

Good's buffers (also Good buffers) are twenty buffering agents for biochemical and biological research selected and described by Norman Good and colleagues during 1966–1980. Most of the buffers were new zwitterionic compounds prepared and tested by Good and coworkers for the first time, though some (MES, ADA, BES, Bicine) were known compounds previously overlooked by biologists. Before Good's work, few hydrogen ion buffers between pH 6 and 8 had been accessible to biologists, and very inappropriate, toxic, reactive and inefficient buffers had often been used. Many Good's buffers became and remain crucial tools in modern biological laboratories.

Selection criteria

Good sought to identify buffering compounds which met several criteria likely to be of value in biological research.

pKa: Because most biological reactions take place near-neutral pH between 6 and 8, ideal buffers would have pKa values in this region to provide maximum buffering capacity there.

Solubility: For ease in handling and because biological systems are in aqueous systems, good solubility in water was required. Low solubility in nonpolar solvents (fats, oils, and organic solvents) was also considered beneficial, as this would tend to prevent the buffer compound from accumulating in nonpolar compartments in biological systems: cell membranes and other cell compartments.

Membrane impermeability: Ideally, a buffer will not readily pass through cell membranes, this will also reduce the accumulation of buffer compound within cells.

Minimal salt effects: Highly ionic buffers may cause problems or complications in some biological systems.

Editorial summary

“Good's buffers” enters the record as buffering agents for biochemical and biological research. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Good's, buffers and buffering can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1966, 1980—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Good's, buffers and buffering.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Good's buffers” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Good's, buffers and buffering provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 28, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4100432. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1966 and 1980.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Good's buffers”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Good's buffers primary sources, Good's buffers archive and Good's research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Good's buffers”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Good's buffers” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.