- 06-23-2005, 12:28 PM
- 06-23-2005, 02:33 PM
Dont bake...there really is no need for it.
Just filter with a .22 filter and be done with it. The largest tempature change you can cause without damaging the hormone is not enough to kill the bacteria that could possibly exist in your oil.
Here are some good posts
If I can find a lab report that was posted somewhere about BA killing bacteria in solution I will post it...cant find it for the life of me right now.
06-23-2005, 10:36 PM
06-24-2005, 10:33 AM
so for NOT destroying the hormone is prefered to bake 2 times @ 135ºC four one hour? It woun't destroy almost any organisms, but at least will be another sterilization step, rather than only the removal one by the filter.
Everyone shows study where baking can or cannot destroy bacteria, but i can't see any of them showing it will destroy some types of hormones althoug it is certain to happen. and wich temp will result in destruction for wich hormones.
06-24-2005, 05:35 PM
Some people think it will kill more bugs to bake it twice and use 120' thinking it won't hurt the hormone. I'm saying, it's less destructive just cooking it once at 160' for 2hrs that heating it twice at 120' for 2hs/each. If you just filter it with a 0.2mic with at least 2% BA in the mix (5% is better IMO) then let it sit a day or two before you use it, it will be fine with no baking. Especially if you use a sterile filter.
06-24-2005, 06:50 PM
Well what I was looking for was in the thread I already posted
but here it is again.
06-24-2005, 09:19 PM
The thing is that the only reasonable method that we can use at home for sterilize, dry heat, in proper use will destroy it or almost destroy it.Originally Posted by DR.D
Well filtering (and the more aseptic techniques the better in the process) is really the only way to go, but really the endotoxins and virus will go trought.. and we will inject them IM. BA will help to maintain the stolution minimally bacterial free, and it will kill some virus that have lipid membranes, but all others will remain there...
I think i'm gonna try the 0,1um nylon filters, at least it will filter the doble of the 0,2um... although i expect a lot of time dedicated to handwork!
06-24-2005, 09:27 PM
06-24-2005, 09:32 PM
I've never seen a 0.1 micron nylon filter, but I suggest PTFE/GMF if your using co-solvents. I agree w/ you about the sterilization, I just don't heat. I seem to get away with it just fine usually. BA is not so effective on non-vegetative spores and viruses, but they are going right through even a 0.1 filter anyway.Originally Posted by daemonium
06-24-2005, 09:45 PM
Even if some bacteria can make it through to your muscle, the human body is much more keen on ridding itself of bacteria. Its really the foreign particles that pose the greatest threat imo.
Won't let me cut and paste the chart Doc.
Last edited by Neuromancer; 06-24-2005 at 10:02 PM.
06-25-2005, 08:02 AM
There are i dunno if all companys do them, but here is one http://www.osmolabstore.com/OsmoLabP...dPage&1&1&1052 ! Some of the nylon are used in pharmaceutic companies, but what do you call "co-solvents"? It's a stupid question, but i just can only think in the general solvents, alcohools or condensation polymers like PEG..or? Yup PTFE/GMF are the usually more used, but they only have minimum size 0,2!Originally Posted by DR.D
Well, after all what matter is that we don't get sick/abcess with this...
And neuromancer, yeah i agrree with you, strange particules may cause a likely abcess! But some endotoxins would be a hell of a **** if they enter in body, but we can't do nothing about it since it is almost a matter of lucky or not with the preparation solvents and the powder!
At home is all we've got... we have to use it.
06-26-2005, 01:12 AM
Right, that's what I meant by C/C's, some can degrade nylon. That's intresting about the GE filters. I was unaware that 0.1mic Nylons were even available. Thanks for the info!Originally Posted by daemonium
06-26-2005, 08:22 AM
07-03-2005, 02:29 AM
I always bake... but i bake at 250deg F. for 15 minutes, cool in the fridge for 15 mins, and repeat the cycle 2-3 times.
In the past, Chemo (the previous board owner) stated something to the effect that the length of time at temp isn't what kills the bacteria but the rapid change in temp. I've always baked like this and swear by my results. All of my buddies that have tried my homebrew gear have thrown away all of their vet gear crap and swear by my stuff.
07-03-2005, 10:14 AM
I think i've found a solution for me, found a guy that can provide me gamma radiation very cheap!
so i just need to filter and send them the package with the vials closed, he sterilizes it and send me back in!
07-03-2005, 11:13 AM
It's a great option, just be careful with 4-ene-3-one structures. They are usually quite photo sensitive and isomerize easily.Originally Posted by daemonium
07-03-2005, 11:44 AM
Dont know much about this so im gonna sound stupid. Your saying heat destroys the hormone... WHat is the point of baking? Many bacteria thrive at a temp 120-160! I would think autoclave would be the only real viable method for home sterilization? How much dammage would pressure sterilizing do to the hormones?
07-03-2005, 12:18 PM
I'll keep that in mind,Originally Posted by DR.D
That should include wich substances?
are your refering as like nandrolone decanoate, 19-Nor-4-androstene-3-one,17b-ol?
that would be a not good new, since test E, test bold un, tren E as almost most of injectables have a similar structure!
Dr.D so you don't think it's a good option for injectables? since if I undestood right the structures, most of injectables will isometrize with gamma radiation!
07-03-2005, 01:09 PM
Assuming he's using a Cs or Sr source, you may be OK. Non-ionizing is not a safe bet, because UV is a real no no, but clean gamma sources may be alright. You'll know by the results. Beta emittion will isomerize too, of course.Originally Posted by daemonium
07-03-2005, 01:44 PM
It will use 270 kCi of Cobalt-60 radiation! (60Co)i don't have more specifications for now..
so i'm not sure about it, but theorically it should be ok for most of phamaceutical products.
07-03-2005, 02:56 PM
I'm away from home right now, and been outta school too long to remember, but I think Co60 emits a low energy beta too. As long as it's geometry is such that it's exposed only to the gamma, it's worth a shot. I still think A-ring saturated comounds would be best with this, let me know how it works. That's a big source too! What's the protocol for the exposure? How many RAD's or mR? When I get home, I'll find the info and let you know what the real deal is for the comounds you mentioned.Originally Posted by daemonium
07-03-2005, 04:29 PM
07-03-2005, 06:41 PM
07-03-2005, 09:34 PM
I'll try to know more technical specifications in the following days, and i'll post here since now i can't get in touch with the guy!Originally Posted by DR.D
Thnks for the big help Dr.D!
07-03-2005, 11:09 PM
OK, it looks like your safe. UV radiation of 300nm or less is the main culprit. So avoid exposure to direct sunlight. However, in one of the ref's I'm looking at, it states that low-velocity electrons (beta's), high frequency electrons, alternating current, x-rays, and cathode rays all can result in oxidative rearrangements. Usually the B ring is opened or the 4-ene is reduced or converted to the delta 5 structure. Gamma radiation is really the same as an x-ray, only difference is that it originates in the nucleus. Still, I say go for it. It's an excellent sterilization technique and if something get's degraded, it'll probably let you know by changing colors or precipitating out of solution.Originally Posted by daemonium
Similar Forum Threads
- By mmorpheuss in forum AnabolicsReplies: 19Last Post: 01-29-2007, 06:30 PM
- By max silver in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 01-18-2005, 11:10 AM
- By Grant in forum AnabolicsReplies: 2Last Post: 10-25-2004, 12:43 AM
- By demon in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 05-09-2004, 10:15 AM
- By Jason161 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 2Last Post: 01-05-2004, 08:32 PM