master.on
New Member
Besides taking longer and more thumb pressure being required
Are there any downsides to 0.1 nm?
Are there any downsides to 0.1 nm?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
0.1 nm syringe filters?
- Thread starter master.on
- Start date
master.on
New Member
I asked because wikipedia syringe filter article says 0.1um filters offer much much more sterility over 0.22
'Filters with 0.1 µm compared with 0.2 µm pore size have enhanced bacterial removal according to a study'
Syringe filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Filters with 0.1 µm compared with 0.2 µm pore size have enhanced bacterial removal according to a study'
Syringe filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Curious to know if anything will flow through that, lol. Would there be any hormone left.
master.on
New Member
Application of membrane filtration for removal of diminutive bioburden organisms in pharmaceutical products and processes. - PubMed - NCBI
Abstract
In this report, we present results of a recent investigation in our laboratories demonstrated the effect of process conditions and/or drug product composition on the ability of 0.2 micron and 0.22 micron sterilizing grade filters to fully retain Ralstonia (formerly Burkholderia, formerly Pseudomonas) pickettii. R. pickettii is a opportunistic pathogen widely distributed in nature as well as clinical specimens and there have been several reports of nosocomial infections due to intrinsic manufacture-related R. pickettii contamination in filter-sterilized parenteral fluids. This study documents the penetration of 0.2 micron nylon 66 and 0.22 micron modified PVDF sterilizing grade filters by R. pickettii (grown and challenged) in a drug solution under conditions that simulated a pharmaceutical filling operation. Penetration was not observed for every filter disc tested, and this may be explained, in part, by the stochastic nature (i.e., governed by the rules of probability) of the retention mechanisms involved. Scanning electron microscopy revealed significant changes in the microorganism's size and morphology as a result of exposure to the drug solution; these changes are consistent with those reported for bacteria subjected to nutrient deprivation. The SEM analyses of R. pickettii challenge suspensions in the drug solution showed that the average cell length decreased from 1.25 +/- 0.27 microns to 0.84 +/- 0.17 micron between zero and 24 hours. In addition, significant changes were observed in the size (length) distributions, with approximately 35% of the cells at 24 hours being smaller than any cell observed at the start of the challenge. These data suggest that the significant reduction in bioburden size and morphology that occurred as a result of exposure to the drug solution may play a role in the reduced ability of the 0.2 micron and 0.22 micron filters tested in this study to retain these organisms. Under the same test conditions where penetration of 0.2/0.22 micron filters was observed, 0.1 micron rated membrane filters qualified with both B. diminuta and Acholeplasma laidlawii mycoplasma consistently provided sterile effluent. Bacterial penetration of 0.2 (or 0.22) micron sterilizing grade filters was not observed under identical test conditions with either R. pickettii in a standardized solution (saline lactose broth) routinely used in challenge testing filters, or with the standard test organism, B. diminuta, in the drug solution. This study thus supports the renewed emphasis on both product- and process specific validation as well as routine bioburden monitoring expressed by regulatory agencies, and the use of enhanced bacterial removal efficiency 0.1 micron rated filters to provide enhanced sterility assurance in pharmaceutical processes.
So it looks like some bacteria will still pass thru 0.22 filters but not thru 0.1 u
Abstract
In this report, we present results of a recent investigation in our laboratories demonstrated the effect of process conditions and/or drug product composition on the ability of 0.2 micron and 0.22 micron sterilizing grade filters to fully retain Ralstonia (formerly Burkholderia, formerly Pseudomonas) pickettii. R. pickettii is a opportunistic pathogen widely distributed in nature as well as clinical specimens and there have been several reports of nosocomial infections due to intrinsic manufacture-related R. pickettii contamination in filter-sterilized parenteral fluids. This study documents the penetration of 0.2 micron nylon 66 and 0.22 micron modified PVDF sterilizing grade filters by R. pickettii (grown and challenged) in a drug solution under conditions that simulated a pharmaceutical filling operation. Penetration was not observed for every filter disc tested, and this may be explained, in part, by the stochastic nature (i.e., governed by the rules of probability) of the retention mechanisms involved. Scanning electron microscopy revealed significant changes in the microorganism's size and morphology as a result of exposure to the drug solution; these changes are consistent with those reported for bacteria subjected to nutrient deprivation. The SEM analyses of R. pickettii challenge suspensions in the drug solution showed that the average cell length decreased from 1.25 +/- 0.27 microns to 0.84 +/- 0.17 micron between zero and 24 hours. In addition, significant changes were observed in the size (length) distributions, with approximately 35% of the cells at 24 hours being smaller than any cell observed at the start of the challenge. These data suggest that the significant reduction in bioburden size and morphology that occurred as a result of exposure to the drug solution may play a role in the reduced ability of the 0.2 micron and 0.22 micron filters tested in this study to retain these organisms. Under the same test conditions where penetration of 0.2/0.22 micron filters was observed, 0.1 micron rated membrane filters qualified with both B. diminuta and Acholeplasma laidlawii mycoplasma consistently provided sterile effluent. Bacterial penetration of 0.2 (or 0.22) micron sterilizing grade filters was not observed under identical test conditions with either R. pickettii in a standardized solution (saline lactose broth) routinely used in challenge testing filters, or with the standard test organism, B. diminuta, in the drug solution. This study thus supports the renewed emphasis on both product- and process specific validation as well as routine bioburden monitoring expressed by regulatory agencies, and the use of enhanced bacterial removal efficiency 0.1 micron rated filters to provide enhanced sterility assurance in pharmaceutical processes.
So it looks like some bacteria will still pass thru 0.22 filters but not thru 0.1 u
Jakan
New Member
for homebrewers will be impossible to filter some oil with 0,1nm filter I think
Good read. I haven't noticed that size filter before.
That doesn't work. Gear has to be properly filtered to be safe to use. You can't count on BA only. If that were true we would not need to filter gear. Just add 3-4 % ba and call it good. I saw that before. Abscesses and scar tissue.
22.5 filter is necessary. Not a 45. That is just lazy, and endangers guys using the gear. As far as I know, a 22.5 is all that is necessary.
BA keeps it clean if you use multiuse vials. 1-3%. If I were using a vial over 10ml, and I would be using vial over a couple months, I would use 2-3% ba for home brew to help prevent contamination. Always use alcohol to clean the vial stopper each time you draw.
Jakan
New Member
Tried filter testo E , 250mg/ml ( 20% EO ) with 0,1nm filter.....no f*cking way. Used my strongest vacuum pump and nothing. 0,1 is so small.
I never had any issues with 22 5. It's been a good read though. I swear I know when a 45 is used instead of a 22.5. Your body reacts to all the shit the 45 lets pass. Always a more sensitive injection site.
Jakan
New Member
Know some guys here, they are produced oils , filtered by suction filters for 16nm. They produced this like ,,semi-finished,, material, but many of their customers using this oil without secondary filtration...and I never heard about any problem. They using 3% BA. One of my friends use this oils, only bake them at 130degrees by 30minutes.
master.on
New Member
Is that really 16 nm? 16 NANOmeters?
16 nm is 0.016 MICROmeters (um)
The standard 0.22 um filter equals 220nm
I didn't find any nanometers filter in the fishersci.com catalog.
Looks like there are no 10nm commercially available filters
Is there any 10nm filter paper? How can I filter 10nm nanoparticles?
That don't work. 130 degrees for 30min isn't going to do anything. I have known guys who never even filter their gear and will only bake it. Some people have to learn the hard way.
Jakan
New Member
You are right , this is a scale :
150-250 µm - S0
90-160 µm - S1
40-90 µm - S2
15-40 µm - S3
5-15 µm - S4
so siringe filter is 0,20-0,45 and they using S3, its 15-40 for semi-finished oils.
master.on
New Member
In the Whatman catalog
http://macro.lsu.edu/HowTo/WhatmanSyringeFilterCollection.pdf
there are 0.02 um filters
page 18 Anotop 10 syringe filters
0.02 have a 10x smaller pore than 0.22
I'm really interested in trying these ones for additional protection for personal use. Let's hope they won't clog. At the end you can only know by trying.
0.02 um filters would be a strong/unique selling point for a small source brewer.
http://macro.lsu.edu/HowTo/WhatmanSyringeFilterCollection.pdf
there are 0.02 um filters
page 18 Anotop 10 syringe filters
0.02 have a 10x smaller pore than 0.22
I'm really interested in trying these ones for additional protection for personal use. Let's hope they won't clog. At the end you can only know by trying.
0.02 um filters would be a strong/unique selling point for a small source brewer.
Jakan
New Member
Iam not sure if in real will work. This filter is for water, and similar liquids, but oil is thick liquid.
