egruberman
Well-known Member
First and foremost, I'm insulted by the implication that you believe that I wouldn't otherwise be able to draw that conclusion myself. I'll resist the urge to trade insults however.
Let's consider the facts:
1. Peptides stored at refrigerator temperatures are good for a very long time, practically speaking well over a year.
2. Peptides stored at -20C degrade less slowly and can be stored for up to 5 years.
3. Typically, a state transition from freezing will degrade a peptide by a certain amount.
Unless we want to pick the specific peptide we can't really quantify the amount of degradation. All we have is qualitative differences to argue about.
@Ghoul's point that consumer equipment can sustain -20C in a stable fashion was patently false. It is possible, with some care, to guarantee that the peptide in consumer freezer equipment never undergoes a freeze/thaw cycle other than initially when it's frozen and finally when it's thawed for use. However that does take some care.
So, you've introduced a fair bit of complexity for a marginal benefit. A common household freezer can't sustainably hold -20C if it's opened and closed frequently. A chest freezer likely could, even still, some care would need to be taken not to dawdle with the door open. Then there's the risk of power outage or someone accidentally leaving a freezer door open.
So, yes, it's entirely possible to extend the life of peptides by freezing them in a household freezer, but the benefits are marginal and the added complexity is not small. If a rando asked me how to store their peptides, I'd tell 'em to throw 'em in the fridge, because fuck trying to explain all that to anyone.
And so now we're back to my comparison to terminal sterilization. It *might* be a benefit, but nobody has yet been able to quantify it. There's a level of complexity and risk associated with the process and so lacking a compelling reason, why would anyone do so?
