HouseCat said:
I picked up some agar plates so I could check how sterile my peptide solutions are and carry out an “experiment.” I put experiment in quotation marks since it can’t really be repeated exactly, though it’s a bit more than a simple project!
How I did it: using either sterile pen needles or sterile syringes, I deposited roughly 1 unit of solution onto the agar plates; every solution had its own sterile needle/syringe. I tried to land about 2.5cm in from the outer edge, then spread the solution across an area of roughly 3x2cm with sterile, individually wrapped cotton swabs. My AC ran throughout, set to auto (so sometimes it blew, sometimes it didn’t). The plates stayed covered and incubated in a room that holds around 70F. Every plate was left open to the air for 2.5 to 5.5 minutes, and the control was exposed for the same length of time as the longest-exposed experimental plate. (A few solutions were being used at the time, so I’d put solution on the plate with a sterile needle, then inject myself, which explains the timing differences. Selank and Ipamorelin were handled that way and shared a plate, so it took a bit longer.) MOTS-C and GHK-Cu each had fresh/refrigerated samples plus samples from the leftovers of cartridges that had sat at room temp for 3 days. Refrigerated cartridge samples (not tirz, which was in vials) had been used for double needle (standard pen needles) injections before testing. (The BPI had its cap taken off on the labeled date but wasn’t pierced until many weeks afterward, though I don’t remember when. Once I got into gray, I decided I could afford to play around with my compounded to figure out which formula I prefer; it’s BPI.)
Problems: The desk I first used was not level, so Selank and Ipamorelin and the refrigerated GHK-Cu samples ran along the edge into the other solution’s area; after that I moved to a level desk. The pen put out a lot of force, so the solution splattered more than with the syringe. I ended up touching the control sample with my bare fingers in the middle of the plate because I thought the plate was still covered—you can see where my nail pierced the agar. The cotton swabs had a pointy end, which I used, but on the NAD+ plate I pressed too hard and scratched the agar.
Results: Mostly good! Some inconclusive, some fairly conclusive. No growth where I touched the control plate: my hand hygiene is on point-woo hoo! The Control sample and the GHK-Cu both show what looks like the same growth at the edge of the plate. That makes me think it came from directional airflow from my AC and was something in the air rather than unsterile GHK-Cu, especially since I don’t see growth where I placed the actual samples. NAD+ is inconclusive…I’m not sure whether what I’m seeing is scratches or growth, since I don’t have a microscope and to my eye it looks the same as when I first spread the sample. MOTS-C that had been left out for 3 days…whoo! There is something really funky there, and I’m pretty sure it’s not from airflow given the placement. (Yes, I had injected this before leaving the sample out…no ill effects except possibly a multi-day itchy ISR, but I can’t exactly recall what pin it was from and when.)
Next month I will test different samples for anaerobic bacteria, and in the fall I will test for aerobic bacteria on blood agar plates.
View attachment 9927
View attachment 9928
View attachment 9929
View attachment 9930
View attachment 9931
View attachment 9932
MOTS-C other side
View attachment 9933
GHK-Cu, other side
View attachment 9934
