Notifications
Clear all

Why do people Filter powder Products ?


daddy92111
(@daddy92111)
New Member Members
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 4
Topic starter  

I cannot understand why anyone on this board is telling other members to sterile filter their powder products. It does not do anything but lower the concentration of your brew. The only exception would be fina pellet conversions, which needs the cellouse filtered out. But all of the raw powders are dissolved with BA whiich makes the product sterile anyway. So would the guys who are telling others to waste there time by running their sterile oil through a whitman filter please explain the reasons for this.


Quote
Goanna
(@goanna)
New Member Members
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 3
 

Let me think here.....Maybe because BA does not magically destroy pariculate matter and contaminants, which will still cause discomfort at the injection site, and possibly infection. If you dont feel that is important, then you should go ahead and heed your own advice, but dont spread uneducated advice like this to others.


ReplyQuote
daddy92111
(@daddy92111)
New Member Members
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 4
Topic starter  

Interesting, because I tested a Testosterone blend I just made using an NMR machine and the only difference between the oil that I filtered and the oil that I did not, was the concentration of active ingredients. infact there are no contaminants in either mixture. I can see your point if someone is working in an unclean lab enviornment and there are contaminants floating around. but I hope our fellow members know better and are using a clean "lab" to begin with. So I guess my point is, if you are careful enough about the selecting the right sterile products and are working in a clean lab, you do not need to waste your time filtering the oil. Plus you get to have stronger shit.


ReplyQuote
Goanna
(@goanna)
New Member Members
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 3
 

If you are working in very clean environment then yes you should be Okay in that aspect, but almost all of the powders we use are from china. They may not even be USP grade, and they may have some contaminants. So unless you are absoutly sure that you have clean USP grade powders that have not been exposed to air for an extended period of time, then you should still filter. Also, you can purge the filters with oil and air at the end so that you make sure you do not lose any active compound. Also, If you do not filter, you should not use the product for at least a week, as the BA will usually take about that time to kill all of the bacteria or virii present.


ReplyQuote
Luto
 Luto
(@luto)
New Member Members
Joined: 4 weeks ago
Posts: 2
 

Originally posted by daddy92111 Interesting, because I tested a testosterone blend I just made using an NMR machine and the only difference between the oil that I filtered and the oil that I did not, was the concentration of active ingredients. Unless u're getting it from reputable chemical companies, by that i meant those supplying chemicals to labs for research purposes. Which i doubt anyone is....u should always filter. Just curious whats the diff in conc for your filtered and non-filtered oil? cheers 🙂


ReplyQuote
MidnightRider
(@midnightrider)
Active Member Members
Joined: 4 weeks ago
Posts: 7
 

Originally posted by daddy92111 Interesting, because I tested a testosterone blend I just made using an NMR machine and the only difference between the oil that I filtered and the oil that I did not, was the concentration of active ingredients. infact there are no contaminants in either mixture. I can see your point if someone is working in an unclean lab enviornment and there are contaminants floating around. but I hope our fellow members know better and are using a clean "lab" to begin with. So I guess my point is, if you are careful enough about the selecting the right sterile products and are working in a clean lab, you do not need to waste your time filtering the oil. Plus you get to have stronger shit. How much difference between the filtered and unfilter. I filter, because I don't know the quality of the powder that I buy.


ReplyQuote
daddy92111
(@daddy92111)
New Member Members
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 4
Topic starter  

Examples of discrepencies before and after deca( was suppose to be 200mg/ml ) before filter, 208.3333 mg/ml after filter, 182.0025 sustunon ( was suppose to be 250mg/ml ) before filter, 286.18 mg/ml after filter, 263.~ mg/ml most of the difference was in the Test Prop EQ ( was suppose to be 200mg/ml ) before filter, 199.6666 mg/ml after filter, 192.7221 mg/ml Test Ethenate ( was suppose to be 250mg/ml ) before filter, 308.~ mg/ml ( I fucked up here ) after filter, 296.~ mg/ml The drop after the filtration process is significant and consistant. There were no contaminants in any of the products each contained only the Powder, BA and/or BB and the sterile oil, which I got from a pharm company VWR.com. I use the same NMR machine for each and only filtered about 10ml out of the 2 litres I had made.


ReplyQuote
budzbud
(@budzbud)
New Member Members
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 1
 

Originally posted by daddy92111 Examples of discrepencies before and after Deca ( was suppose to be 200mg/ml ) before filter, 208.3333 mg/ml after filter, 182.0025 sustunon ( was suppose to be 250mg/ml ) before filter, 286.18 mg/ml after filter, 263.~ mg/ml most of the difference was in the test Prop EQ ( was suppose to be 200mg/ml ) before filter, 199.6666 mg/ml after filter, 192.7221 mg/ml Test Ethenate ( was suppose to be 250mg/ml ) before filter, 308.~ mg/ml ( I fucked up here ) after filter, 296.~ mg/ml The drop after the filtration process is significant and consistant. There were no contaminants in any of the products each contained only the Powder, BA and/or BB and the sterile oil, which I got from a pharm company VWR.com. I use the same NMR machine for each and only filtered about 10ml out of the 2 litres I had made. stated losses 26.3308mg/ml deca 23ish mg/ml sustanon 6.9445mg/ml EQ 12mg/ml testE let me start by saying I use stainless micron mesh in a heated stainless bodied filter. I am 100% certain my loss is no where near this as my filtration assembly rarely has any discernable residue. I filter not out of any visible necessity but because its an easy extra strep that does reduce chances of undetected contamination. with paper or even some of the plastic filters I could see some material loss. However I feel your technique must either somehow be flawed or your test sample insufficient. I say this for one simple reason. if you have a loss of 26.3308 mg/ml on your deca filtration and you filter 100ml you are looking at roughly 2 2/3g of material in your filter.....anyone who has ever performed a 100ml conversion can say for certain they do not have that much raw material in their filter.....if you want to say that filtering 1ml you lost 26.3308mg...okay I could see that being possible however your filter would then stop filtering. and you wouldnt get 9ml and 237mg of lost product.....I would be more inclined to accept that a given filter was capable of binding a set amount and beyond that would pass through. Ill lay this down now.....take a camcorder....show your filter on an analytical balance before filtration....show your filtration of 10ml...then show the filter again on the analytical balance 263.308mg heavier convert it to avi or mpeg and upload it and I will happily withdraw my disbelief from your thread.


ReplyQuote
Goanna
(@goanna)
New Member Members
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 3
 

Originally posted by budzbud stated losses 26.3308mg/ml deca 23ish mg/ml sustanon 6.9445mg/ml EQ 12mg/ml testE let me start by saying I use stainless micron mesh in a heated stainless bodied filter. I am 100% certain my loss is no where near this as my filtration assembly rarely has any discernable residue. I filter not out of any visible necessity but because its an easy extra strep that does reduce chances of undetected contamination. with paper or even some of the plastic filters I could see some material loss. However I feel your technique must either somehow be flawed or your test sample insufficient. I say this for one simple reason. if you have a loss of 26.3308 mg/ml on your deca filtration and you filter 100ml you are looking at roughly 2 2/3g of material in your filter.....anyone who has ever performed a 100ml conversion can say for certain they do not have that much raw material in their filter.....if you want to say that filtering 1ml you lost 26.3308mg...okay I could see that being possible however your filter would then stop filtering. and you wouldnt get 9ml and 237mg of lost product.....I would be more inclined to accept that a given filter was capable of binding a set amount and beyond that would pass through. Ill lay this down now.....take a camcorder....show your filter on an analytical balance before filtration....show your filtration of 10ml...then show the filter again on the analytical balance 263.308mg heavier convert it to avi or mpeg and upload it and I will happily withdraw my disbelief from your thread. I agree. The numbers sound kind of far fetched too me. Also, is an NMR machine realy the best machine to use for this type of measurement? I would say an HPLC or Gas Chromatograph would be much better suited for this application.


ReplyQuote
jacksauce
(@jacksauce)
New Member Members
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 1
 

I filter because when I mix all the ingredients together in a 50 ml vial it is cloudy. I put it through a filter and it crystal clear. I don't know why but I alway have felt safer going through a filter. Thanks, JS


ReplyQuote
Share: