The biohack.me forums were originally run on Vanilla and ran from January 2011 to July 2024. They are preserved here as a read-only archive. If you had an account on the forums and are in the archive and wish to have either your posts anonymized or removed entirely, email us and let us know.
While we are no longer running Vanilla, Patreon badges are still being awarded, and shoutout forum posts are being created, because this is done directly in the database via an automated task.
Hydrothermal carbonization and other nano particle work
So tomorrow we'll be mucking about in the lab and are gonna be trying out some various nano particle synthesis. I'll put link to the papers and if someone needs one of them i'll throw them in the community thing.
We're looking into a technique called hydrothermal carbonization. Basically it lets you take a carbon compound or structure and convert it all into carbon nanotubels and nano particles or graphene oxides. If you use a large carbon structure like a piece of wood it'll retain it's shape. The one I'm most interested in and the one that has immediate use for biohacking is the hydrothermal carbonization of chitosan. It produced tiny carbon nanodots that were uv responsive and biosafe. They easily pass into cells and glow when exposed to uv. You could throw them into some DMSO and paint yourself a temporary glowing arm. Best part is you'd maybe be able to directly image cells on your skin since the things give off their own light they make the cells they're in super visable. I'd imagine if it entered your blood stream you veins would glow. but fuck knows if that's safe.
We're looking into a technique called hydrothermal carbonization. Basically it lets you take a carbon compound or structure and convert it all into carbon nanotubels and nano particles or graphene oxides. If you use a large carbon structure like a piece of wood it'll retain it's shape. The one I'm most interested in and the one that has immediate use for biohacking is the hydrothermal carbonization of chitosan. It produced tiny carbon nanodots that were uv responsive and biosafe. They easily pass into cells and glow when exposed to uv. You could throw them into some DMSO and paint yourself a temporary glowing arm. Best part is you'd maybe be able to directly image cells on your skin since the things give off their own light they make the cells they're in super visable. I'd imagine if it entered your blood stream you veins would glow. but fuck knows if that's safe.
All that aside the coolest part is that it's essentially made of shrimp shells and water in some pipe fittings that you leave in the oven for a few hours on low.
Will post results and such later. If you have any ideas for things we should try let us know and if you want a quick explanation of the whole process in detail HERE is the video
the paper:
One-step synthesis of amino-functionalized fluorescent carbon nanoparticles by hydrothermal carbonization of chitosanw
the paper:
One-step synthesis of amino-functionalized fluorescent carbon nanoparticles by hydrothermal carbonization of chitosanw
Comments
Displaying comments 1 - 30 of 93
-
Could this be used in tattoo ink? Might be neat new method of glowing tattoos.
-
http://electronicdesign.com/blog/carcinogenic-evidence-against-nanotubes-continues-mount http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/11/1/59 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23751780 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20155580 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl060162e http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958166907001553 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3436504?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asp/jnn/2006/00000006/00000005/art00021 The study mentioned only discussed cytotoxicity in vitro. There are numerous contradictory studies. There have been so many studies at this point finding genotoxicity and carcinogenicity in carbon nano-particles. Very potent carcinogen if inhaled as dust... also when injected. The DMSO route may be novel, but if anything it will enhance the likelihood of cancer. Yeah.. This is not even remotely biosafe. You must be working with Glims now.
-
Ok, so C60 and C70 fullerenes specifically have been to prolong lifespan in mice. This is cool, but carbon nanotubes and particles in general can be very dangerous. They are often compared to asbestos. They accumulate in cells throughout the body and cause granulomas and fibrosis. I've had patients before with peritoneal cancer. It's not a fun condition. Once again, please do a bit more research. This is not a biosafe substance.
-
Glad to see you're not doing yourself any favours. Just how fucking petty are you? Yes I do work with glims sometimes, although this is actually not one of those times. Read through the papers. Non of the papers you posted show that the nanoparticles i'm working on are unsafe. On of the reason we're playing with them is specifically to test and see if they are totally biosafe. These are created in a way that there is mounting evidence produces particles which are far more biosafe since their method of fabrication doesn't leave them to the same problems inherent with the other nano-structures. The article that I posted from did some quick tests that we will be expanding on. I was simply excited by the possibilities. All your papers shows that nanotubes are potentially unsafe. Carbon quantum dots are made almost entirely of graphene which has yet to be shown to be unsafe. Also non of the papers sited cover graphene. The paper that covers "carbon nanomaterials" if you actually read it doesn't cover the particles discussed but rather carbon black which is just soot. Ya no shit soot is an issue. The nanotubes are only dangerous if they enter the cell, which I won't be doing. And even if it was all true and they're not safe for direct body contact, the nano materials we're looking at can be made into the most powerful capacitors on the planet which could be amazing for implant power storage. So now if you can remove the stick from your ass and your head after that, maybe we can get some work done? If you have any papers that specifically show these particles are not safe i'm happy to read through them. I'd never want to expose someone to a dangerous substance. But thus far the evidence you put forward doesn't show that anything is unsafe. Besides the point isn't to jump right to biohacking and injecting ourselves with this shit. It's to play around and make some cool nanoparticles and explore their properties.
-
Also have you considered that the issues that have been put forward about the particles can be fixed? they seem to cause problems due to either being sharp or reactive, so don't use sharp ones and adjust the reactive ones. If you reacted the particles with something to functionilize them or just bind to the reactive sites and cap them the particles should be much safer, but that's something we can actually test in a lab. I was hoping to start a discussion about nanoparticles and their potential uses in biohacking but ya sure "I need to do more research".
-
You makes claims as to this being completely biosafe and advise mixing it with DMSO and putting it on your arm... Now you're saying you won't be putting be putting them into a cell... It doesn't add up. If your willing to say something is "completely biosafe" without even an understanding as to what you can determine with in vitro cytotoxicity testing then you're way out of your depth. Your arrogance is not going to shield you or anyone who takes what you say seriously from harm. You know I'm right.
-
As a scientist my opinion changes when the evidence does. You presented evidence that some carbon nanoparticles are unsafe. So I adjust accordingly to the new evidence. I'd absolutely put these into cells. Just not my own at first when their safety is still not proven. I had done research onto this and it was showing that hydrothermal carbonization had the potential to make far safer nanoparticles and I'm following that idea to see how these particles can be used. The DMSO was a single idea of how yo get them into the body. It was one idea to help get things going. So no, all you are is a bitter little man. And remarkably. I wouldn't have to treat you like an asshole if you hadn't start by being such am asshole. Wtf is that glims comment. It was to say that both mine and glims work is poor? Well fuck yourself then. I've got work to do.
-
Ok. I've had enough of you. The shells of shrimp contain many different molecules... not just just the target material. The metal of the pipe can cause metal ions to bind to substance substantially changing the resulting material. Both of these factor will change the product. You do no research into the safety of the substance but you feel qualified to state that it's safe based on a misinterpretation of one article. Yes. This is shit work. You should be able to see that. Warning you about it somehow makes me an asshole and petty etc? I assumed you were working with Glims because I assumed you delegated checking out the safety and got screwed by him. Apparently I was wrong and you're simply an idiot.
-
thank you for assuming im an idiot. Much appreciated. Im aware shrimp shells contain multiple products and I know the pipe will affect it. This is a preliminary test of the particles. If they pan out as something useful you improve the process and eliminate more and more variables so you get a consistent product. I know how this works. We're not just working on biohacking as I've said, the particles will be used for things where their biocompatibility is irrelevant. I was excited and was hoping people would chime in. I never claimed all carbon nano particles are safe, yet you referenced every kind of particle we're not working on. The articles I was reading indicated that they may be safe, if I overstated their safety in the initial post im sorry but I was rather excited about actually doing something and exploring new materials. So allow me to adjust my initial statement. Today we'll be creating nano particlesof which there is some evidence that they could be safe and some evidence that they could not. We will be exploring their properties both for our own work as well as any potential biohacking uses as well as exploring their safety and the protocols needed to handle them. As I've said repeatedly, before you derailed the whole thread, I was hoping the community could give their input on nano particles and put forward any ideas for them. new synthesis methods, novel uses, novel types, whatever. I figured that way we may actually accomplish something.
-
Ok, cool. So now that that's done. How are you going to be isolating/testing the product?
-
HPLC would be awesome, but I've still yet to find a cheap place to do it.
On a side note, if you go back and read what I originally wrote without what you assume my tone to be... it's actually rather neutral. If you really want to make a deal out of this though, cool.
-
Currently i'm waiting on reagents to process the chitin into chitosan so this weekend will be mostly focused on getting the equipment built and working as we test out some other particles. However once we make these particles i'll be approaching some of the people around my university. I know a few who are working on similar projects and if we get lucky they may let us run cytotoxicity tests on the particles. But we'll see. May need to be outsourced. In the coming months we're looking into getting our own cell lines and everything else you need for testing. I know my school has the bacteria for an ames test which would be a good start to see if the particles are mutagenic. Then if we can get a human cell line we can observe how the particles interact with the cells, do a viable cell count after exposure and see if any cells mutate or start to replicate rapidly.
-
As to isolating the end product we're actually looking into hplc. Again my school has several and i may be able to get into the lab but there are several online for a couple hundred bucks. Which is on the list of gear we want for the lab. That said the particles come out fairly pure honestly. At least the other particles we'll be working on. Not sure about the glowing ones yet. So we'll have to wait and see how things turn out.
-
Doing some of the same stuff in terms of setting up the cell lines. I just finished my biocontainment laminar flow unit. I'm setting up to be able to perform Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation/intracutaneous, Acute Systemic Toxicity, pyrogenicity, and genotoxicity testing. I'd offer cell lines... but it might actually be harder to ship them to you than to simply order them. Is an Ames the same as a reverse mutagen assay?
-
Ya same thing, old school name. We used it to test an old antimichrobial. really cheap and easy to do if you have the cells and very sensitive to mutation. It's sort of the first line in most chemical trials. If something fails it then you know you're fucked to start with.
-
And since it's bacteria it's easier to grow and store them. And only if the thing passes do you worry about harder testing.
-
Ok, so what I would want to figure out is whether these things will spontaneously form bonds with carboxyl groups. Also the reverse mutagen stuff is good. It's still part of the WHO standard for testing implant surfaces.
-
Yup, exactly why I like it. Not sure about the carboxl groups. I remember reading about a test for it and the name is clinging to the back of my brain and I can't quite remember it. It's driving me nuts.
-
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130318/srep01473/full/srep01473.html This article is really good. It discusses different color fluorescence etc.
-
First experiment came back positive! will be tomorrow before we can confirm cause things need to dry but we may have successfully grow a monolayer of graphene. Simple tang lau method (google it, video comes up with a guy explaining it if you're interested) We're waiting on carbon capped iron nanoparticles and those are still in the heat for 5 more hours. Will find that out in the morning as well. either way successful day! we'll be testing in the morning. Both are sort of warm ups to get us used to the method. Shortly we'll see if we can tune the fluorescent nanoparticles to different colors using a modification of the same method. Hopefully the resulting particles will be safer. Will post picture when we have them!
-
Wow that is a great paper. Uses a lot of what we're doing actually. and they've looked into a few ideas I had. Hmm interesting....
-
I'm confused by the dispersibility/solubility of this stuff. Graphene is being used to make super high efficiency osmotic water filters for desalienation... but from what I'm reading the stuff just deconstructs in water. I might be misunderstanding this, but it seems that even helium can't pass through but water has no difficulty. So basically it could be a filter that could keep out even virus. Also, a reduced type of graphene ox can make a layer resistant to corrosive acids. Of course the anode aspect is of great potential.
-
it all depends how you treat it. Depending how how it's made and what you've stuck it too it'll do different things. graphene cannot be made into a perfect sheet so you usually grow it on something else. Or you start with graphene oxide, put it on something and reduce it down to grapehene which is less soluble. that's why playing with it's properties gives such variability in it's function.
-
Goodness. Some cool stuff went down when I was out of the country. I'm not positive whether it would work with straight up graphene, but I saw a program on the science channel several years ago that mentioned mixing CNTs into car paint to make self-repairing paint. Perhaps the super capacitors could be self healing as well.
-
once a cap is damaged you probably want a new one anyway since they can explode. I honestly haven't looked into self healing stuff at all yet. It's on the list for down the line though. Currently working on nanites/protocells/nanoparticles and carbonfibre mucles as well as a few implant projects and building graphene super caps. And a few genetics projects...... ok so the list is a lot longer but once some of that clears up i'll look into self healing for sure! or it'll get thrown in the mix XD
-
Looks like I need to go have another look at supercaps again. Based on your knowledge thus far, are they cheap at the moment(relatively speaking), or able to be fabricated with things that won't cost me an arm and a leg?
-
Graphene super caps are relatively cheap and easy to make and are stronger than anything you'll buy. If you put in enough work you can get something like 100-farads per square centimetre of cap. There's a guy making one that's basically 9.5x11 and an inch thick and holds 1mega ferrad. and the cost of the thing would be 100-200 bucks. which for something that powerful is obsurd. Hence why we're working with them.
-
Translating farads into something more easily understood, a fully charged 1 megafarad capacitor is holding somewhere close to a small lightning bolt, yes?(I base my idea off of the conversion formula F(farads) = (A * s)/V A being amps, s being seconds, and V being volts). A megafarad is 1 million farads, so... You could have some pretty ridiculous numbers there... In that regard, I can see why you wouldn't want one exploding near you...
-
The guy is making a 3 megafarad one which could power your house and car for a while. And he's made shittier models which are easier for us to do that are in the range of 100000 farads or less. To compare, the super cap you can buy, at most will be 2700 farads. And that shit will melt anything you connect it to given a full charge. And can keep doing that for 10 min? Imagine what a 100000 farad could do. Eventually you've got railgun power. And on the flip side since they hold so much power imagine their uses for biohacking. A tiny one holds a massive charge. Would be great for implants
-
I've seen single coil coilguns that can punch holes in laptop screens and thin metal with 6 ordinary, coke can-sized caps. Strapping a bigger one on would be result in some beautiful fireworks... is there any limit to how small they can be at the moment (Parasitic capacitance issues past a certain point)? What method are using to get your graphene?
Displaying comments 1 - 30 of 93