Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: What proof is preservative?

Expand Messages
  • gff_stwrt
    ... snip . Alcohol as a sterilant swab is usually ca 50% (higher is actually less effective, for reasons I won t go into). big snip ... In our food business
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thomas <whosbrewing@...>
      wrote:
      >
      snip

      . Alcohol as a sterilant swab is usually ca 50% (higher is actually
      less effective, for reasons I won't go into).

      big snip
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Rob.
      >
      > Hi, Rob, hi folks,

      In our food business careful handwashing is essential, and we
      currently use antibacterial soap solutions.

      > A fairly recent innovation in hospitals is alcohol based (not sure
      if it is used as a 'hand-rub' or a soap, maybe either).

      I had considered using alcohol in a handwashing solution, possibly
      mixed with the glycerine that is a by-product of my son's bio-diesel
      production.

      Would a mixture giving 50% or a bit higher alcohol by volume be
      effective? Should other ingredients be used as well, or instead of
      the glycerine?

      Given that methanol is poisonous, would it be OK to use heads
      and/or tails in such a product?

      If this works it will be a lot cheaper than buying special soap and
      might be better too.

      Regards,

      The Baker
      >
      ______________________________________________________________________
      ______________
      > Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone
      call rates
      > (http://voice.yahoo.com)
      >
    • Robert Thomas
      Hi TB, By swabs I meant for cleaning surfaces etc, so your point about glyceline/ol is important: you will end up with dermatitis otherwise, if you re not
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi TB,
        By swabs I meant for cleaning surfaces etc, so your point about
        glyceline/ol is important: you will end up with dermatitis otherwise,
        if you're not lucky.
        I need to check my data (micro book has walked off the shelf). Ethanol
        at ca 50-60% is optimal (relying on memory here) because:
        1. it evaporates quickly
        2. higher % dries the bug cell membrane, but doesn't enter the cell to
        kill it. just add water and you have reconstituted bugs!

        phenol is often added to hand wash (if it smells horrible, you've got
        phenol in it). Short of mercury based sterilants (where's my hat??)
        phenol is among the best biocides.

        I wouldn't use meths as this is absorbed through the skin: not a
        problem for the occasional spillage, but regular hand washing with it
        is not clever! Plus, higher alcohols are more effective (hence the
        common use of isopropanol).

        Now, where's that book gone.....
        cheers
        rob.

        --- gff_stwrt <gff_stwrt@...> wrote:

        > --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thomas <whosbrewing@...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > snip
        >
        > . Alcohol as a sterilant swab is usually ca 50% (higher is actually
        > less effective, for reasons I won't go into).
        >
        > big snip
        > >
        > > Cheers,
        > > Rob.
        > >
        > > Hi, Rob, hi folks,
        >
        > In our food business careful handwashing is essential, and we
        > currently use antibacterial soap solutions.
        >
        > > A fairly recent innovation in hospitals is alcohol based (not sure
        > if it is used as a 'hand-rub' or a soap, maybe either).
        >
        > I had considered using alcohol in a handwashing solution, possibly
        > mixed with the glycerine that is a by-product of my son's bio-diesel
        > production.
        >
        > Would a mixture giving 50% or a bit higher alcohol by volume be
        > effective? Should other ingredients be used as well, or instead of
        > the glycerine?
        >
        > Given that methanol is poisonous, would it be OK to use heads
        > and/or tails in such a product?
        >
        > If this works it will be a lot cheaper than buying special soap and
        >
        > might be better too.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > The Baker
        > >
        >
        ______________________________________________________________________
        > ______________
        > > Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone
        >
        > call rates
        > > (http://voice.yahoo.com)
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        Cheers,
        Rob.



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
        (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/)
      • Robert Hubble
        Harry, for Pete s sake, don t DISSUADE him! If you decide on 25% as a safe concentration, or even 43%, when whatever disaster they are afraid of strikes, it ll
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Harry, for Pete's sake, don't DISSUADE him!

          If you decide on 25% as a safe concentration, or even 43%, when whatever
          disaster they are afraid of strikes, it'll be the happiest damned disaster
          on record.

          You're kinda turning into a spoil-sport.

          Zymurgy Bob, a simple potstiller




          >From: "Harry" <gnikomson2000@...>
          >Reply-To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
          >To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [Distillers] Re: What proof is preservative?
          >Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:03:35 -0000
          >
          >--- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thomas <whosbrewing@...>
          >wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi Richard,
          > > you'll need much higher %ages and preferably acidic. As an analogy,
          > > think how easy beer turns to vinegar, and how much more difficult
          >it is
          > > to have 12% wine go off (it still does though). Alcohol as a
          >sterilant
          > > swab is usually ca 50% (higher is actually less effective, for
          >reasons
          > > I won't go into).
          > > I suppose you are thinking of storing largish quantities, otherwise
          > > distillation (or even boiling - preferably 2 times with 3 days
          >between
          > > to kill spores) would be good.
          > > cheers
          > > Rob.
          >
          >
          >16%+ abv is the sterility cutoff point vintners advocate in wines.
          >This prevents most (not all) microbes. For short term (several
          >months) it's fine. For long term, think 20%+. This is one of the
          >main reasons that wine was consumed as a hydrating liquid in
          >preference to water in the dark ages, as it was known that strong
          >wine could withstand spoilage by bacteria. However the logic was
          >flawed.
          >
          >Bubonic plague (black death) was thought at the time to be spread by
          >rats pissing in the water supply. More recent investigation has
          >proven that it is spread mostly by infected fleas ravenously sucking
          >blood from host animals, notably rats, but also dogs, cats, deer,
          >and human lice. Rats urine spreads a different (but still very
          >nasty) disease called 'leptospirosis'.
          >
          >Slainte!
          >regards Harry
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
          > FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >

          _________________________________________________________________
          Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
          https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.