[NHCOLL-L:3043] RE: shipping in propylene glycol (Re: EtOH blues)

[Doug Yanega]

Dean Pentcheff wrote:

>What this all suggests to me is that it would be productive to:
>
>1) establish that propylene glycol really is a non-destructive and
>non-interfering chemical when involved in molecular genetic analysis of
>tissue (established by proper controlled experiments, not one or two
>anecdotal reports that it worked for one or two specimens); and

As I've discovered, this is in fact well-established in the 
peer-reviewed literature, with controlled experiments.

>2) if so, find a cheap source of sufficiently pure propylene glycol for
>shipping purposes.

There are many such producers, and 5-gallon pails can be obtained for 
anywhere from $100-150, meaning $20-30 per gallon (not including 
shipping costs). This isn't exactly cheap, but it is a LOT cheaper 
than trying to conform to postal regulations, or the $15K fine one 
can get carrying ethanol on an airplane. Besides, 5 gallons can fill 
a LOT of whirlpak bags.

>Because we'll never know what the proprietary additives are in consumer
>propylene glycol (and they can be changed at a manufacturer's whim), I
>don't think that source will ever be practical.

I'd be tempted to agree, though there are evidently many 
entomologists who presently use store-bought antifreeze, and none 
have reported any problems with DNA extraction. Then again, their 
specimens are only in PG for a day or two before being moved into 95% 
EtOH.

Sincerely,
-- 

Doug Yanega        /Dept. of Entomology         /Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82