Hi Brooks, Thanks so much for addressing my concerns and clearing up any false notions I may have unwittingly passed on to the group.
Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Brooks Bradley To: Silver-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:52 PM Subject: CS>Supporting Information: Liposomal Encapsulation Techniques Dear List Members, I have been somewhat remiss in not supplying additional information which might make prosecuting an acceptable generation process....somewhat easier. To that end, I offer a few elaborating comments. First, using some form of blender to enhance/accelerate the process, is perfectly acceptable....and effective. However, one must understand the limitations of using this modality. To wit: Because the entire encapsulation process is, essentially, a refined homogenization process the researcher is bound within the limits of the chosen process....itself. e.g. Using a blender in the early stages of the ultrasonic type protocol, places a limit (especially particle size) on the resultant compounds. As a general rule, the smallest liposomes achievable...are going to be larger than 150 nm in size----even after extensive aggitating. Therefore, if smaller particles are desired.....some procedure must be invoked to achieve this. Ultrasonic energy is an excellent way to achieve this. Ultrasonic energy applied to solutions having, previously, been mixed using mechanical blenders (of the household type) will improve the encapsulation process greatly (sometimes as m! uch as an order of magnitude)through the immediate size reduction of the encapsulated particle size. Additionally, both power levels and exposure time experienced from the US energy......have a pronounced effect on the end product. e.g. simply by extending the time exposed to the US energy will yield a product with a majority of particles of a markedly reduced physical size (sometimes by more than one-half). Also, by increasing the power spectral density [energy delivered to the target], considerable size and complexity reduction may be achieved. (sometimes from larger, multiple-layered liposomes, down to single-layered liposomes of much smaller size). This one characteristic, alone, should justify the selection of the larger US unit over the smaller one....as the larger US power level output is much higher. The way to capitalize on this advantage is to limit the depth of the parent solution in the larger US unit, to 3/4" to 1". Because the distance from the US energy! source and the mass of the target material DOES, in fact, have a powe rful effect on the delivered energy. Direct visual observation alone, will confirm the powerful increase in cavitation (energy field) of the liquid medium. This type innovation will yield effects that in some cases....challenge the results of laboratory-grade, high pressure (over 3000 psi) impact plate systems.....costing $10,000 and up. What most commercial producers (and labs) do, is they RECIRCULATE their candidate solutions.....in order to achieve smaller----and more isolated----end products. By extending your exposure time, using shallow solutions, DIYs can...in many cases, actually challenge, to some degree, the levels accomplished by these very high dollar commercial machines.....using their own DIY homemade systems. Someone asked the question...does pre-aggitation via blending devices damage or compromise the candidate solutions. The short answer is NO. Almost any type of aggitation aids in the homogenization process. I have some descriptive information relative to the use of blending devices, which may prove of use to the list membership, but I must go at this time. Sincerely, Brooks Bradley. -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down... List maintainer: Mike Devour
