Filtering finished oils

[Photon]

Would that contamination be detectable via Jano tests?

It depends.
There's no 1 test fits all.
We only have 1 test for that, GCMS and the likelihood of it finding the cause of contamination is very low.

 

[Katzenjammer]

It depends.
There's no 1 test fits all.
We only have 1 test for that, GCMS and the likelihood of it finding the cause of contamination is very low.

So that brings us back to the testing of the raws at the beginning. If a "qualitative and quantitative analysis" by Jano of AAS sample is (say) 96%, what does that really tell us?

No sample is going to be 100%. But then again, we don't really know what is in that remaining 4%?

And I still do wonder: where do compounding pharmacies get their raws, if not China? I inject their oils without even thinking twice about it. Ignorance is bliss?

 

[Photon]

No sample is going to be 100%. But then again, we don't really know what is in that remaining 4%?

Yes

 

[Katzenjammer]

Yes

But then presumably the raw is purified via heating/processing?

 

[Photon]

But then presumably the raw is purified via heating/processing?

no
it's more likely to be dissolved
impurities et all

pharma raws are probably from china too (not entirely sure)
however they don't go through ugl channels and they probably get the cream of the crop of each batch.

 

[Katzenjammer]

no
it's more likely to be dissolved
impurities et all

Is that because reducing/eliminating impurities in raw is:

1. Impossible to do technically?

2. Too difficult to do technically for a home brewer?

3. Skipped because of laziness?

 

[Photon]

Is that because it's:

1. Impossible to do technically?

2. Too difficult to do technically for a home brewer?

3. Skipped because of laziness?

you dont get to choose what your solvent dissolves
unless it's something like sand, it'll probably just dissolve

 

[Katzenjammer]

you dont get to choose what your solvent dissolves
unless it's something like sand, it'll probably just dissolve

I mean before that step.

You have your raw powder; you know it's pretty much 96% pure. There must be a way to heat it or process it to get rid of anything nasty, no? Not 100% but it's something.

Now you dissolve....

 

[Photon]

I mean before that step.

You have your raw powder; you know it's pretty much 96% pure. There must be a way to heat it or process it to get rid of anything nasty, no? Not 100% but it's something.

Now you dissolve....

You are too focused on purity. A 99 percent pure product may be unsafe to use whereas the 96 percent safe. They may not even be the same compound.

You can improve purity chemically and attempt to reduce these impurities. There's even a thread on it. But is the end result safe to use? We have no way of knowing with UGL test availability.

The 99 purity sample that has been purified, may not be the same compound as the one that's unpurified, but is treated the same when testing for purity, because it looks similar, and the testing methods available to us are just not sensitive enough.

 

[Photon]

For anyone wondering, I've been playing around with PTFE 33mm .1um and .22um and haven't seen any noticable difference.

Both pushes easily through my caulk gun.

 

[AllbrandNew]

For anyone wondering, I've been playing around with PTFE 33mm .1um and .22um and haven't seen any noticable difference.

Both pushes easily through my caulk gun.

TY for this. I was recently wondering about whether .1um filters would be too small to reasonably use, since they seem to be priced nearly the same and would be a 'better' option I'd think it usable.

 

[Raww]

For anyone wondering, I've been playing around with PTFE 33mm .1um and .22um and haven't seen any noticable difference.

Both pushes easily through my caulk gun.

Obviously more filtration means smaller particles and junk removed. And that's probably better.

But what is the real world type of things removed by going that small?

 

[Photon]

Obviously more filtration means smaller particles and junk removed. And that's probably better.

But what is the real world type of things removed by going that small?

Tbh I don't think there's any noticable difference between the 2. .22 is probably sufficient. However aside from perhaps a slower flow rate, I don't see any negatives to using a .1 either.

Price wise, roughly the same, both seems to filter fine. I tried 70ml MCT and 160ml GSO with a caulk gun and 40ml MCT with a 10ml syringe, honestly don't see much of a difference between .22 in terms of flow.

Post in thread 'Steroid Bust Poland September 2025'

Oct 24, 2025

Would there be any benefit in going down to 0.1um?
Ive got .1um PES and recently just ordered PTFE.

The bacteria below .22um pore size aren’t gram negative (all are larger than .3um) and aren’t pathogenic to humans, which is why that size is the standard used for sterilization by pharma. .1um will remove those smaller bacteria along with some large virii, so there’s a slight benefit, but at the cost of slower filtration and slightly (<1%) more peptide loss.

• Ghoul

• 

 

[Adi18]

And I still do wonder: where do compounding pharmacies get their raws, if not China? I inject their oils without even thinking twice about it. Ignorance is bliss?

India, my cousins husband works for a pharmaceutical company in Texas, he said they've had to start getting supplies from India, and alot of supplies get rejected due to things like woodchips in them, dirt. It's a major pharmaceutical company, not a compounding lab.

 

[Katzenjammer]

India, my cousins husband works for a pharmaceutical company in Texas, he said they've had to start getting supplies from India, and alot of supplies get rejected due to things like woodchips in them, dirt. It's a major pharmaceutical company, not a compounding lab.

Wow, so even major pharmaceuticals?

Does anyone in the US make raws/test, etc?

Maybe all of this will cultivate domestic production.

 

[Photon]

These are the 2 vials that are recommended for use on this board.

UPS rated ALK vials
FluroTec coated stoppers
Better than the below, but expired.

20mm, 10ml and 30ml Non-Sterile, Empty, Clear Glass Vials with FluroTec™ barrier film, EXPIRED

Non-sterile 20mm, 10ml and 30ml FluroTec™vials are expired and are no longer considered sterile. These are for use with procedures that do not require the vial to be sterile.

www.farrislabs.com

UPS Rated UltraSpec vials
PTFE stoppers

Ultra Spec 10ML Clear Sealed Sterile Glass Vials, Qty 1

Ultra Spec Sterile Clear Sealed Glass Vials - 10ML (20mm Neck) made of SCHOTT FIOLAX® glass tubing. In order to receive vials in sealed shrink wrap boxes, please order in multiples of 25.

www.medical-and-lab-supplies.com

I haven't seen any comparison so Im posting mine.

Review for the 30ml vials
ALK vials does seem to be of better quality.
Its a tiny bit wider and little longer. It can probably hold an extra 1ml or more vs the UltraSpec vials.

The FluroTec stoppers are significantly tougher than the PTFE ones. It is significantly harder to pierce which is making me think twice to use with insulin syringes.

Other vials
MedLabSupply also sells ALK sterile vials, however these are neither FluroTec or PTFE coated and so i do not recommend.

KS-TEK was one of the first vials i used, the quality of both the stoppers and glass are poor, i also no longer recommend them.

 

[Photon]

Anyone seen something like this?
SSA MTREN5, Jano tested with 95% overdose.

It dissolves clear when i shake the vial but this cloudy stuff forms after 48 hours or so. Already filtered twice with a .22 PTFE at room temp.
I'm sourcing for .1 PTFE now.
It doesn't look like crashing to me..

View attachment 355567

I've no clue what this is but there's def a difference filtering it with .1 and .22um. I'm seeing brown stuff in the .1 even after my prior attempts of .22 filtering.