• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

UV Germicidal lamps: Harm Reduction?

Jamshyd

Jamshyd

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
15,489
Location
Not on a train, sadly.
I always got this idea in the back of my head. Today it dawned unto me to search ebay for "germicidal lamps"... and to my surprise, I find them readily available, and very cheap!

Now here is the idea: For people who inject drugs, would such a divice be useful?

Since one of the biggest concerns about IVing is the risk of getting infections (whether it is a "dirty shot" or HIV), would the use of such a device be of any help? Lets say one prepares a shot, then puts the needle under such a lamp for so-and-so minutes.

Would that work?

For the note, I am aware than not all UV is created equal, ie. your "blacklight" wouldn't be useful here, that is why I emphasize germicidal lamps since they emit UV in the range that would sterilize.
 
Ok, that's a bit out of my better knowledge but IMO that wouldn't work well. Some reasons:

- Lots "germs" (bacteria, but mainly viruses), or should I better say LOADS of them are placed inside the needle and other places which the UV-light won't reach.
- I have no idea at all about their resistance but I would guess that for example Hepatitis-like viruses take more time then just some minutes to get grilled. HIV...ok...this one doesn't make it long at the fresh air and exposed to sunlight, but that's not the only threat.
- Handling of such lamps is considered as impractical (size? temperature? cable attached?). Not the very best argument, I know. :(
- Ever thought about negative sideeffects of UV? Especially to the eyes, but also to the skin... In particular the type of lamps you are talking about are quite strong. Otherwise they wouldn't be germicidal.
- Exposition to strong UV-light after syringe preparation could cause some degradation of your soon-to-be-shot compound. But that's just a guess. And even if I should be correct in this point: Just change the procedure.

Regards, MurphyClox
 
A pressure cooker is your best option to make things sterile. Just put you needles and drugs (in a air-closed yar) in the cooker and heat to 121 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes.
 
the germicidal UV lamps are not without dangers. they emit UV C rays that penetrate into the skin and kill cells and damage DNA. also looking directly into the lamp could damage your eyesight. certainly not something i would want to have at home.

what about filter sterilization? much easier, less dangerous and more practical than a germicidal UV lamp.

edit: wow, a lot of responses i did not see as i answered.
A pressure cooker is your best option to make things sterile. Just put you needles and drugs (in a air-closed yar) in the cooker and heat to 121 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
pressure cooker is also a nice method. but at microbiology course they tell us that you have to heat the pressure cooker for over an hour at 120˚C, and even then some especially hardy microorganinisms could survive (although that's not likely).
 
Last edited:
Ok, first - thanks for the idea spec, but I started this thread specifically about UV sterilization, I am not looking for other ideas :).

Now lets modify a few things:
1. I did think about the microbes being inside the needle being problematic. How about putting the solution itself exposed under UV light, and then drawing?
2. Re: UV radiation being harmful, a simple hood over the lamp should suffice, I would assume? One can obtain a hood from a hardware store easily, I imagine.
3. Re: time to kill things, if one is really into HR, one should be willing to wait, even if that means preparing the soln. overnight and leaving it under the (hooded) UV bulb.
4. About filtering, I was under the assumption that filters will only filter out large pathogens while leaving in others that are smaller.

Another suggestion: How about this being a method for preparing large ammounts of drug solutions for long-term, multiple-use, such as Ketamine, Meth...etc? in sterile vials?

Again, I don't think this is feasable as a "street" HR technique (unless perhaps provided at progressive safe-injection sites), but for personal HR?

My bottom-line question though - will a germicidal UV ray actually completely sterilize a solution?

A secondary question elicited by Murphy's reply is whether or not the drugs themselves degrade under UV light? I know off the bat that this will be probably impractical for Heroin, if for no other reason then because it degrades into morphine simply by being in soln. for a while, but what about everything else that people inject?
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling that blasting the drug solution with UV would be fine.

This would have to be an immediately pre-use device- obviously you're not gonna dissolve your heroin days in advance.

For fairly short term, I don't think it'd be very damaging for the majority of drugs. Obviously LSD is out- but no one will cry about that.
 
After reading your modifications to the original post I have to admit that this is IMO really the main problem left:

Jamshyd said:
A secondary question elicited by Murphy's reply is whether or not the drugs themselves degrade under UV light?
Click to expand...

Either you do a test first or you check literature about solution stabilities. In general I would never recommend solutions to be stored. You better prepare them fresh. As was said: Heroin (but practically every other ester as well) will be hydrolyzed over time. So will LSD & Psilocybin/Psilocin. I fear for the primary amines in solution, too. And strong UV makes everything worse. So IMO plz forget about the long-time storage option and back to sterilize fresh preparations

To answer your questions:
- Sterilizing the solution first and then drawing it up should work. This solves the problem, as far as you do the whole procedure as aseptic as possible. 'coz: the drawing itself could contaminate your sample. But this counts in general and shouldn't be a criticism in this point
- Yep, a hood does the job. Be sure that it is absolutely closed and you're on the safe side.
- OK, I admit that if 5 min aren't enough then just do it longer. You're perfectly right.
- There are in fact steril filters (to be used with normal syringes that have a luer connector...that are practically all syringes out there) that can even filter out viruses. But they only make sense if you do the whole job absolutely sterile. And this can hardly be achieved without a laminar flow bench and similar sophisticated equipment. BUT it's possible.

About your bottom-line question: YES, THEY'LL DO THE JOB. Albeit quite overcomplicated IMO. But this wasn't the question ;)

Peace! Murphy
 
Stability is definitely something that you need to think about. Not just breakdown but polymerization products.

To clarify, if you were to blast most drugs as a powder form in a vacuum, direct damage from UV is probably not much of a problem. But in aqueous solution, especially in the presence of oxygen, free radicals form which are very reactive...

If you use a filter, a .45 uM is OK for bacteria but you need a .22 uM if you want to get rid of viruses. These tend to clog very easily btw, so you need to make sure there is no particulate matter - by maybe using a centrifuge as suggested in another thread...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top