Foaming during reconstitution and whether it matters — the long version posts 91–118
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
What I would tell a new member reading about Foaming during reconstitution for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Post #92 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Foaming during reconstitution would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
I read post #91 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
How much of the diluent volume the powder itself displaces: for a small peptide vial, the powder volume is negligible. For a larger vial or a kit with multiple compounds, the displacement can be a few tenths of a millilitre. If precision matters to you, account for it by targeting a final weight rather than a final volume.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
Post #94 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Trying to state the Foaming during reconstitution position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Narrowing post #96, because the general version has more than one answer.
Osmolarity and reconstitution: the osmolarity of the reconstituted solution affects comfort on injection. Isotonic solutions (close to blood osmolarity) are less irritating than hypertonic solutions. This is why diluent choice (sterile water vs. saline) matters.
Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
Adding a null result on Foaming during reconstitution. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Add the diluent down the side of the vial rather than directly onto the cake. It is slower and it avoids the foaming that makes people think something has gone wrong.
One case, stated as one case.
Post #98 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Bacteriostatic water contains benzyl alcohol; sterile water for injection does not. The difference matters when a container will be entered repeatedly over days and matters much less for a single-use preparation.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Where I part company with post #100, and it is a narrow parting.
Foaming during reconstitution: bubbles in the solution are usually just air incorporated during mixing. They usually resolve with gentle warming and time. Persistent foam is unusual and might warrant contact with the supplier, but initial foam is ordinary.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
Confirming post #102 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The practical version of Foaming during reconstitution is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
I would keep Foaming during reconstitution and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
Do not shake. Swirl, or leave it. Vigorous agitation introduces air and shear, and neither helps a peptide go into solution any faster than patience does.
On post #105 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
On Foaming during reconstitution the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
One caution on Foaming during reconstitution: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
Coming back to post #107, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Write the reconstitution date and the concentration on the vial. Not on a note, on the vial. Every account here of a dosing error involving the wrong concentration involves a vial with nothing written on it.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
The arithmetic on Foaming during reconstitution is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
Do not shake. Swirl, or leave it. Vigorous agitation introduces air and shear, and neither helps a peptide go into solution any faster than patience does.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
The best check on any reconstitution calculation is to do it twice by two different routes — mass per volume, then volume per dose — and see whether they agree. They should, and when they do not it is nearly always the concentration step.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
Worth separating two things that post #115 runs together.
My position on Foaming during reconstitution is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.
This follows post #115 rather than contradicting it.
Where the Foaming during reconstitution discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Second pass at: Choosing a concentration on purpose rather than by accident
Second pass at: Choosing a concentration on purpose rather than by accident Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on Choosing a…
|
+44 | 48 | 1k | 19mo |
|
How much of the diluent volume the powder itself displaces
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How much of the diluent volume the powder itself displaces Writing this out with the numbers in it, because "roughly" is how these go wrong. Vial:…
|
2 | 1.8k | 1d | |
|
Follow-up: The decimal-point error, and the habit that catches it
On the subject in the title: The decimal-point error, and the habit that catches it Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about decimal-point error that I did not know to ask the first…
|
+118 | 131 | 50k | 7mo |
|
Why "add 2 mL" is not an instruction
The question in the title: Why "add 2 mL" is not an instruction I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Practical question with the units stated, because I have seen how quickly…
|
+23 | 27 | 3.5k | 6mo |
|
Reconstitution volumes that produce round numbers, tabulated
Reconstitution volumes that produce round numbers, tabulated — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Writing this out with the numbers in it, because "roughly" is how these go…
|
+103 | 112 | 1.7k | 3mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags reconstitution, bacteriostatic water, worked example
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Micro-titration: a disputed topic, argued properly
Micro-titration: a disputed topic, argued properly Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+99 | 110 | 61k | 2d |
|
Needle changes between doses on a reusable pen — does this still hold?
Needle changes between doses on a reusable pen — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Posting a small dataset on Needle changes…
|
+1 | 5 | 38k | 13mo |
|
What to include when your question involves a chromatogram — one year on
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What to include when your question involves a chromatogram — one year on Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the…
|
+69 | 75 | 862 | 14d |
|
An ABAB design with a data table and honest limitations
An ABAB design with a data table and honest limitations Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. An honest uncertainty about ABAB design rather than a disguised…
|
2 | 45k | 5mo | |
|
Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor Titration planner refuses — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
+76 | 83 | 53k | 2mo |