Curious about filters — is my nurse sister's take outdated or incorrect?

[BlueDog55]

I've got a question about filtering. My sister works as a nurse, and we got onto the topic of peptides and related stuff. I've never used a filter myself, but there's been a lot of discussion about them on here, so I asked whether she uses them. Her answer was no, and that they aren't necessary.

According to her, filters exist (or existed) to keep glass particles out — because of the vials you have to snap open in order to use them. That, she said, is the whole point of the filters...???

She also guessed that filtering might damage the peptide by pushing it through — basically being rough with it, the same way you're not supposed to shake the bottles. And she added that it has nothing to do with sterilizing.

So my question is: is her information out of date, simply wrong, or what?

 

[yrrdead]

BlueDog55 said:

I've got a question about filtering. My sister works as a nurse, and we got onto the topic of peptides and related stuff. I've never used a filter myself, but there's been a lot of discussion about them on here, so I asked whether she uses them. Her answer was no, and that they aren't necessary.

According to her, filters exist (or existed) to keep glass particles out — because of the vials you have to snap open in order to use them. That, she said, is the whole point of the filters...???

She also guessed that filtering might damage the peptide by pushing it through — basically being rough with it, the same way you're not supposed to shake the bottles. And she added that it has nothing to do with sterilizing.

So my question is: is her information out of date, simply wrong, or what?

I'd put it more gently: for the bulk of people working in medicine, gray market peptides sit well outside what they'd consider standard. That said, she's not entirely wrong about shaking — certain compounds hold up better (tirz), while other peps degrade when shaken, and that's exactly why every reconstitution starter guide advises against it.

Lab settings are where filters really come into play. Once you dig in, you'll notice a wide range of filter materials, each matched to different chemicals. For most of the peptides we work with, you'll see .22um (pore size) in PES, with the size chosen based on volume — though 13mm and 4mm are what you'll encounter most often. PES being hydrophilic is the reason we reach for it: it lets nearly all proteins pass through.

With any luck, someone will dig up that great graphic comparing pore size against microscopic particles — the ones that get filtered and the ones that don't. I really should have kept it around for a moment exactly like this.

 

[Calm Logic]

Filtering for bacteria isn't something nurses need to do, though glass particles do get filtered when ampules are snapped open.

 

[woundcarping]

From where she sits, she's right.

But her experience doesn't apply here, and her perspective is off.

 

[BlueDog55]

yrrdead said:

BlueDog55 said:

I've got a question about filtering. My sister works as a nurse, and we got onto the topic of peptides and related stuff. I've never used a filter myself, but there's been a lot of discussion about them on here, so I asked whether she uses them. Her answer was no, and that they aren't necessary.

According to her, filters exist (or existed) to keep glass particles out — because of the vials you have to snap open in order to use them. That, she said, is the whole point of the filters...???

She also guessed that filtering might damage the peptide by pushing it through — basically being rough with it, the same way you're not supposed to shake the bottles. And she added that it has nothing to do with sterilizing.

So my question is: is her information out of date, simply wrong, or what?

I'd put it more gently: for the bulk of people working in medicine, gray market peptides sit well outside what they'd consider standard. That said, she's not entirely wrong about shaking — certain compounds hold up better (tirz), while other peps degrade when shaken, and that's exactly why every reconstitution starter guide advises against it.

Lab settings are where filters really come into play. Once you dig in, you'll notice a wide range of filter materials, each matched to different chemicals. For most of the peptides we work with, you'll see .22um (pore size) in PES, with the size chosen based on volume — though 13mm and 4mm are what you'll encounter most often. PES being hydrophilic is the reason we reach for it: it lets nearly all proteins pass through.

With any luck, someone will dig up that great graphic comparing pore size against microscopic particles — the ones that get filtered and the ones that don't. I really should have kept it around for a moment exactly like this.

So from what I understand, there are filters designed for bacteria, and when it comes to Gray, filtering it out is a smart move. Right??

 

[yrrdead]

BlueDog55 said:

yrrdead said:

BlueDog55 said:

I've got a question about filtering. My sister works as a nurse, and we got onto the topic of peptides and related stuff. I've never used a filter myself, but there's been a lot of discussion about them on here, so I asked whether she uses them. Her answer was no, and that they aren't necessary.

According to her, filters exist (or existed) to keep glass particles out — because of the vials you have to snap open in order to use them. That, she said, is the whole point of the filters...???

She also guessed that filtering might damage the peptide by pushing it through — basically being rough with it, the same way you're not supposed to shake the bottles. And she added that it has nothing to do with sterilizing.

So my question is: is her information out of date, simply wrong, or what?

I'd put it more gently: for the bulk of people working in medicine, gray market peptides sit well outside what they'd consider standard. That said, she's not entirely wrong about shaking — certain compounds hold up better (tirz), while other peps degrade when shaken, and that's exactly why every reconstitution starter guide advises against it.

Lab settings are where filters really come into play. Once you dig in, you'll notice a wide range of filter materials, each matched to different chemicals. For most of the peptides we work with, you'll see .22um (pore size) in PES, with the size chosen based on volume — though 13mm and 4mm are what you'll encounter most often. PES being hydrophilic is the reason we reach for it: it lets nearly all proteins pass through.

With any luck, someone will dig up that great graphic comparing pore size against microscopic particles — the ones that get filtered and the ones that don't. I really should have kept it around for a moment exactly like this.

So from what I understand, there are filters designed for bacteria, and when it comes to Gray, filtering it out is a smart move. Right??

Syringe filters come in a range of dimensions, pore sizes, and materials. Bacteria isn't what they're designed around.

Is it a smart move? Possibly? Under ideal conditions, sure—it's one more step that ought to raise the product's safety level. But in practice, things aren't so black and white.

Each extra step that filtration adds is another point where you could actually be making things worse rather than better. That's not a matter of opinion, just probability.

That said, if a pen and cartridges are what you're working with, there's basically no argument against filtering.

Here's the image (thanks @Grogu ) I mentioned before;