Does filtering work? Yep, lab tested....
-
-
@Stevepep I figured. That's why I bought up a stash before posting this lol!
-
Drove the price up a bunch too. I bet it shows up on vendor sites soon....
-
I wanted to share this in the hopes that others might start sharing more testing info here on Peptide Critic....
I kept seeing people recommending to filter their peps and started doing some research. I found that the .2 micron filters, while good, aren't 100% for bacteria. Granted the bacteria they would miss are very rare and would not be commonly found in lyophilized peptides, but that less than 100% still bothered me.
Considering there has to be a practical and financial limit to the rabbit hole we go down for research peptide safety, and we all have to find our own comfort level with that, I started doing some more research.
I found sterile 0.1 micron filters for about $1 each and decided to go one step further and actually test them. We had a batch of Reta from JEEP that failed sterility at Janoshik. (also note that this is when we found out that Janoshik will allow someone to edit a report to change the company name, batch number, etc after the fact for a small fee. Def a red flag for doctoring "verified" tests at Janoshik).
I sent in two of those vials and two of the 0.1 Micron filters that I found. I had them reconstitute the two contaminated vials and test half of each vial unfiltered and half of each vial filtered. This confirmed for me that filtering (at least with the 0.1 micron filters) is viable and effective. Note I mistyped the MG size as 24mg instead of 34mg doh. Hope this is useful for somebody.
@jamiegallien said:
I wanted to share this in the hopes that others might start sharing more testing info here on Peptide Critic....
I kept seeing people recommending to filter their peps and started doing some research. I found that the .2 micron filters, while good, aren't 100% for bacteria. Granted the bacteria they would miss are very rare and would not be commonly found in lyophilized peptides, but that less than 100% still bothered me.
Considering there has to be a practical and financial limit to the rabbit hole we go down for research peptide safety, and we all have to find our own comfort level with that, I started doing some more research.
I found sterile 0.1 micron filters for about $1 each and decided to go one step further and actually test them. We had a batch of Reta from JEEP that failed sterility at Janoshik. (also note that this is when we found out that Janoshik will allow someone to edit a report to change the company name, batch number, etc after the fact for a small fee. Def a red flag for doctoring "verified" tests at Janoshik).
I sent in two of those vials and two of the 0.1 Micron filters that I found. I had them reconstitute the two contaminated vials and test half of each vial unfiltered and half of each vial filtered. This confirmed for me that filtering (at least with the 0.1 micron filters) is viable and effective. Note I mistyped the MG size as 24mg instead of 34mg doh. Hope this is useful for somebody.
Thank you for doing these tests. For the 0.1 micron filters are you limited to pushing through 1ml only? I’ve been using the bigger ones from biologix as I need to filter 3ml into pen cartridges. If these 0.1 can handle that much volume I’ll switch over to them for the added safety.
-
@jamiegallien said:
I wanted to share this in the hopes that others might start sharing more testing info here on Peptide Critic....
I kept seeing people recommending to filter their peps and started doing some research. I found that the .2 micron filters, while good, aren't 100% for bacteria. Granted the bacteria they would miss are very rare and would not be commonly found in lyophilized peptides, but that less than 100% still bothered me.
Considering there has to be a practical and financial limit to the rabbit hole we go down for research peptide safety, and we all have to find our own comfort level with that, I started doing some more research.
I found sterile 0.1 micron filters for about $1 each and decided to go one step further and actually test them. We had a batch of Reta from JEEP that failed sterility at Janoshik. (also note that this is when we found out that Janoshik will allow someone to edit a report to change the company name, batch number, etc after the fact for a small fee. Def a red flag for doctoring "verified" tests at Janoshik).
I sent in two of those vials and two of the 0.1 Micron filters that I found. I had them reconstitute the two contaminated vials and test half of each vial unfiltered and half of each vial filtered. This confirmed for me that filtering (at least with the 0.1 micron filters) is viable and effective. Note I mistyped the MG size as 24mg instead of 34mg doh. Hope this is useful for somebody.
Thank you for doing these tests. For the 0.1 micron filters are you limited to pushing through 1ml only? I’ve been using the bigger ones from biologix as I need to filter 3ml into pen cartridges. If these 0.1 can handle that much volume I’ll switch over to them for the added safety.
@denti They work find with 3ml. With a bigger vial you will want to reconstitute with 3ml only then add additional bac afterward if needed. The 13mm filters handle 10ml. If you need more the 30mm housing can get the 30mm that handles 100ml.
Also, from what I read on use you don't want to force the liquid through as that can bust the filter and contaminate. It should take about 15 seconds or more to push 3ml through without forcing.
From the website:
Specifications
Diameter 13mm 30mm
Housing Material PP PP
Filtration Area (cm²) 0.092 4.9
Holdup Volume (μl) <10 <120
Volume Throughput (ml) 10 100
Connections (Inlet/Outlet) Female Luer Lock Inlet / Male Luer Slip Outlet Female Luer Lock Inlet / Male Luer Slip Outlet
Max Operating Pressure (psi) 87 87
Max Operating Temperature (°C) 100 100
Prefilter PP -
@denti They work find with 3ml. With a bigger vial you will want to reconstitute with 3ml only then add additional bac afterward if needed. The 13mm filters handle 10ml. If you need more the 30mm housing can get the 30mm that handles 100ml.
Also, from what I read on use you don't want to force the liquid through as that can bust the filter and contaminate. It should take about 15 seconds or more to push 3ml through without forcing.
From the website:
Specifications
Diameter 13mm 30mm
Housing Material PP PP
Filtration Area (cm²) 0.092 4.9
Holdup Volume (μl) <10 <120
Volume Throughput (ml) 10 100
Connections (Inlet/Outlet) Female Luer Lock Inlet / Male Luer Slip Outlet Female Luer Lock Inlet / Male Luer Slip Outlet
Max Operating Pressure (psi) 87 87
Max Operating Temperature (°C) 100 100
Prefilter PP@jamiegallien Thank you! Do you have the exact amazon link for the ones you purchased? I see a few different ones but would like to purchase the exact ones you used. The 13mm sound perfect as the most I've ever done is 9ml of BAC reconstitution with a GHK-cu 100mg vial that was then filtered into three 3ml pen cartridges.. Most of my reconstitution is just using 3ml of BAC on 90% of my peptides that go into a single 3ml pen cartridge.
I've been using these Biologix
Sterile Syringe Filter, PES, Diameter 13mm, Pore Size 0.22μm -
50count@$57.29 +tax,shpg
-
50count@$57.29 +tax,shpg
-
@vpeptides It works some. Does not get mycoplasma. 0.1 Micron filters do. Again, each of us have to find a level of comfort vs cost, convenience, etc. My comfort level includes paying a few cents more for filters that I have tested.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9143324/
Mycoplasma can be present in reconstituted peptides. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10668599/
It is one of the most common and difficult-to-detect contaminants in liquid peptide solutions. Because it lacks a cell wall and has a highly flexible body, it bypasses standard laboratory safety measures with ease.
Mycoplasma can introduce itself into reconstituted peptides in several ways:
-
It Passes Through Standard 0.22 µm Filters. If a peptide solution is passed through a standard 0.2 or 0.22-micron filter during the reconstitution or manufacturing process, standard bacteria are trapped. However, Mycoplasma species typically range from 0.1 to 0.3 microns. They can easily squeeze straight through a 0.22 µm filter and remain completely viable in the final liquid.
-
Contamination of the Mixing Water. If the water used to reconstitute the peptide powder is compromised, it can introduce the bacteria. While distilled or plain sterile water removes standard pathogens, any handling error or structural breach in the water container can allow Mycoplasma to enter and persist in the fluid.
-
Poor Aseptic Technique During Mixing. The human respiratory tract and skin are natural hosts for certain Mycoplasma species. If a researcher or technician talks, coughs, or handles the vial without a mask, or if they reuse gloves or pipettes during the reconstitution step, the bacteria can easily be transferred directly into the open vial.
-
It Remains Completely Invisible. Unlike other bacterial contaminations that cause a liquid to look cloudy, milky, or change color, Mycoplasma does not cause turbidity. A reconstituted peptide vial can contain millions of Mycoplasma organisms per milliliter while remaining crystal clear to the naked eye.
-
-
@jamiegallien Would double filtering work? One with the .22 um filter and the .01 Micron filter?
@DLB27803 The only reason to do that would be if you had known particulates in the peptide (then you wouldn't want to use it). You would be using the .22 to pre-filter to keep the 0.1 from clogging. My rule is if the 0.1 clogs, the peptide is bad (there IS a limit to the amount of stuff it can catch before clogging).
-
Ill feel just fine using 0.22um filters. This is the filter media used in aseptic food manufacturing and nutraceuticals. 0.22um is the defined threshold for "commercially sterile", and is the standard for all but the highest pharma filtering. But actually, I would argue it is also the standard there given the vast availability of that filtering media, as compared to 0.1um.
For context, there are foods made using this standard for very weakened and frail people; think post surgery, cancer patients, and even those that get fed through a tube which would be the highest possible standard for "food". Even these, the 0.22um "commercially sterile" standard is used.
-
Ill also add that the concern of mycoplasma does not seem to be of high concern, since it has a very hard time surviving the lyophilization AND rehydration process, not even adding in the 0.9% alcohol we are all using in our BAC water.
-
Ill also add that the concern of mycoplasma does not seem to be of high concern, since it has a very hard time surviving the lyophilization AND rehydration process, not even adding in the 0.9% alcohol we are all using in our BAC water.
-
@damic it’s a great question and using a .1um filter can disrupt certain peptides.
Size Exclusion via Aggregation: If individual peptide molecules clump together into larger micro-aggregates or complexes, those clumps may be trapped by the 0.1 µm pores.
High Shear Stress: Pushing a small volume through an ultra-fine 0.1 µm syringe filter requires high pressure, which can occasionally induce foaming or surface-induced denaturation in fragile, large-chain polypeptides.
Recommendations for HandlingPore Size Standard: A standard 0.22 µm filter is typically used for sterile filtration in peptide workflows, as it removes bacteria effectively while reducing resistance and adsorption risks compared to a 0.1 µm filter.Membrane Choice: Use low-binding membrane materials like PES (polyethersulfone) to minimize how much of the peptide sticks to the filter disc.
Had no idea glad I didn’t jump the gun on this one. Makes sense at some point a finer filter is going to disrupt the good stuff in an attempt to get rid of the bad stuff.
-
@damic it’s a great question and using a .1um filter can disrupt certain peptides.
Size Exclusion via Aggregation: If individual peptide molecules clump together into larger micro-aggregates or complexes, those clumps may be trapped by the 0.1 µm pores.
High Shear Stress: Pushing a small volume through an ultra-fine 0.1 µm syringe filter requires high pressure, which can occasionally induce foaming or surface-induced denaturation in fragile, large-chain polypeptides.
Recommendations for HandlingPore Size Standard: A standard 0.22 µm filter is typically used for sterile filtration in peptide workflows, as it removes bacteria effectively while reducing resistance and adsorption risks compared to a 0.1 µm filter.Membrane Choice: Use low-binding membrane materials like PES (polyethersulfone) to minimize how much of the peptide sticks to the filter disc.
Had no idea glad I didn’t jump the gun on this one. Makes sense at some point a finer filter is going to disrupt the good stuff in an attempt to get rid of the bad stuff.
@Stevepep Thank you for running AI for us, but the way you presumably constructed your question predisposed the positive answer. If you ask: Will using 0.1 µm syringe filter be significantly more harmful for filtering small peptides solutions comparing to 0.22 µm filter made with the same low-binding hydrophilic membrane like PES?, you may get a different answer.
-
@Stevepep Thank you for running AI for us, but the way you presumably constructed your question predisposed the positive answer. If you ask: Will using 0.1 µm syringe filter be significantly more harmful for filtering small peptides solutions comparing to 0.22 µm filter made with the same low-binding hydrophilic membrane like PES?, you may get a different answer.
@vpeptides Side note. I hate AI. It creates stupid people ignorant of their own ignorance. (No I'm not saying Stevepep is stupid. Just making a general statement about what I see in the real world work environment, etc). I get this 10 times a day as an IT director from users entering our response to a helpdesk ticket into AI. "Fine then....fix it yourself!" lol!
-
@vpeptides Side note. I hate AI. It creates stupid people ignorant of their own ignorance. (No I'm not saying Stevepep is stupid. Just making a general statement about what I see in the real world work environment, etc). I get this 10 times a day as an IT director from users entering our response to a helpdesk ticket into AI. "Fine then....fix it yourself!" lol!
@jamiegallien AI is OK as long as you clearly realize it is NOT A PERSON, it's a tool that works as a fishing rod, so it all depends how and where you cast it, what bait you use, how deep you will let your line go, how fast you will pull, etc. You may get a different fish, or no fish at all.
-
50count@$57.29 +tax,shpg
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login