Is Starsan good desinfectant? (spolier: no)

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

MaximS

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
Hi everyone!
A simple experiment was conducted by two Russian homebrewing microbiologists in a lab. Three cultures of microorganisms were prepared:
- Bacillus subtilis (gram-positive bacteria)
- Klebsiella spp (gram-negative)
- Candida Albicans (fungus)

The first part of the experiment was to test how effective StarSan and another local product called KatrilDes (won't focus on the latter) are as desinfectants in solutions when used in proportions recommended by manufacturers. In case of StarSan it is an ounce per 5 gallons*.
For testing the desinfectants were transfered to tubes and each was innoculated with 50 microliters of corresponding culture. After 20 minutes all them were moved to agar growth-medium plates. The sad results may be observed below (StarSan's part is marked as 'S')
_dbg8WKPui4.jpg

As you can see desinfecting capabilities of StarSan (and the other desinfectant) are quite limited to say the least in the concentrations proposed by the manufacturer.

The second part of the experiment was to test whether the same products work as 6% solution (which is much more comparing to manufacturer's recommendations). The right part of the plate is 6% Hydrogen Peroxyde included as a control. The results are below (StarSan's part is marked as 'C' here)
50xFTyBJ5GY.jpg

In this concentration both products proved to be efficient desinfectants.

* Actually, guys misread the documentation and prepared one ounce per 5 litres, which is about 4 times stronger.

I expect a lot of comments stating something like 'I use StarSan and have 10/50/100 batches without contamination signs'. I found myself in pretty similar situation but using iodine-based sanitizer which proved absolutely useless in any reasonable concentrations being tested in similar conditions. So, I suppose it is really not that easy to infect a batch when you work clean, even when your sanitizer isn't that efficient.

Would be happy to hear if anyone conducted similar examination of desinfectants, especially StarSan, with different results.

P.S. All the content in guys' group is in Russian language but just in case here is the link https://vk.com/inquisitor_74,
 
First of all, Star San is a sanitizer, not a disinfectant. It isn't, nor was it ever, designed to disinfect a solution of cultured microbes poured directly into a Star San solution. It is designed as a surface sanitizer.

The fact that the experimenters misread the amount of water needed, I question whether an ounce was even truly used. Truly, after realizing a mistake like this, the experiment should have been repeated.

Furthermore, the size of the sample of Star San was not included in this post. It sounds as thought it was probably quite small though. I suspect if you inoculated five gallons of Star San with a 50 mcg bacteria culture, the results would be different.

Your discussion at the end makes it seem as though sanitization is not that important in keeping beer from getting infected. This is simply not the case. Although Star San may not be effective in this specific lab situation, it is VERY effective at surface sanitization capable of preventing beer infections. If you doubt its efficacy in this situation, start brewing without sanitizing, and see how your infection rate compares to using Star San for sanitization.
 
First of all, Star San is a sanitizer, not a disinfectant. It isn't, nor was it ever, designed to disinfect a solution of cultured microbes poured directly into a Star San solution. It is designed as a surface sanitizer.
Hi, max384, thanks for your response. Well, I'd think (no scientific proof for this statement) that it must be even "easier" for sanitizing solution to kill microbes that are in solution itself comparing to them being on surface. The point of sanitation vs disinfection seems valid to me, although the question arises: our final goal when we sanitise our homebrewing equipment is to get rid of all the nasty creatures; why would we use less efficient sanitizing agent when a lot of lab/medical/production-grade desinfectants exist in the market? Some of them, like aforementioned hydrogen peroxide, can be used without further rinse, as it degrades to water and oxygen. I really doubt any commercial brewery uses just sanitizing product to desinfect their equipment.

The fact that the experimenters misread the amount of water needed, I question whether an ounce was even truly used. Truly, after realizing a mistake like this, the experiment should have been repeated.
Well, I would question their ability to carefuly read English documentation, but still trust their ability to measure a certain amount being professional lab workers. Nevertheless, the experiment definitely worth repeating with parameters adjusted.

Furthermore, the size of the sample of Star San was not included in this post. It sounds as thought it was probably quite small though. I suspect if you inoculated five gallons of Star San with a 50 mcg bacteria culture, the results would be different.
Yep, that was my fault not to state the amount of StarSan used. It was 5 ml (and 50 microliters of culture), so the ratio of desinfectant to culture was 100:1. It looks like it's really not what StarSan can handle. Can you share your thoughts on what proportion you think is more reasonable for such a test?

Your discussion at the end makes it seem as though sanitization is not that important in keeping beer from getting infected. This is simply not the case. Although Star San may not be effective in this specific lab situation, it is VERY effective at surface sanitization capable of preventing beer infections. If you doubt its efficacy in this situation, start brewing without sanitizing, and see how your infection rate compares to using Star San for sanitization.
I agree that it's better to use StarSan than don't use anything.
 
Not to mention starsan is sold as a no rinse sanitizer. It's made to stop killing once a certain pH is reached. If you have to rinse, whats the point of sanitizing in the first place? Throw some disinfectant in your wort and see how your yeast likes it.
 
There is not difference between a sanitize and a disinfectant. At least not recognized by any source that matters.

I am not surprised by the results, that's why breweries don't use StarSan they use either Chlorine Dioxide or Peracetic both which are fungicidal, bacterial and sporicidial at low concentrations.

However that said they didn't test strains that actually matter, no suprise bascillus subtilis survived when you consider it can survive 110C.. I would like to see the results for micrococcus leutus, staph epidermis, staph hominis etc since they are skin biota.

Also unless you know the inoculum level the results are meaningless. If they are spiking with 10E12 or something insane like that then that is an unreleastic challenge level, especially since you only need to demonstrate a 3 log reduction of most things to be classed as a disinfectant.

Considering there is a series of ISO standards for this test then they haven't really got an excuse for getting it wrong.

Also what makes this worst is its not taking into account inhibition by soiliage or fabric, i.e plastic is harder to disinfect than plastics.
 
Hi, max384, thanks for your response. Well, I'd think (no scientific proof for this statement) that it must be even "easier" for sanitizing solution to kill microbes that are in solution itself comparing to them being on surface. The point of sanitation vs disinfection seems valid to me, although the question arises: our final goal when we sanitise our homebrewing equipment is to get rid of all the nasty creatures; why would we use less efficient sanitizing agent when a lot of lab/medical/production-grade desinfectants exist in the market? Some of them, like aforementioned hydrogen peroxide, can be used without further rinse, as it degrades to water and oxygen. I really doubt any commercial brewery uses just sanitizing product to desinfect their equipment.

Many commercial breweries use acid-based sanitizers, among others, which is basically what Star San is. They also use separate cleaners as well (as should we). What they use is more concentrated though, I'm sure.

I'm sure that hydrogen peroxide would work well, although you must be careful to use food grade H2O2, not the stuff you find at the pharmacy.

Yep, that was my fault not to state the amount of StarSan used. It was 5 ml (and 50 microliters of culture), so the ratio of desinfectant to culture was 100:1. It looks like it's really not what StarSan can handle. Can you share your thoughts on what proportion you think is more reasonable for such a test?.

A 100:1 ratio is HUGE! Think about it this way, a typical mixture of Star San is 5 gallons. If you were to inoculate a 5 gallon batch at a 100:1 ratio, you'd have to use a 6.4 oz liquid culture, which is nearly a cup of bacterial culture! That's WELL beyond anything any homebrewer will ever encounter. To be fair, I don't know the concentration of bacteria in the liquid culture, but at that high of a ratio, it almost doesn't matter.

A more realistic proportion would be something along the lines of 50 mcl in several gallons. Even that amount would be far more than you'd run into sanitizing surfaces of brewing equipment.

There is no real utility in drawing meaningful conclusions from an experiment that tests parameters that aren't even close to reality.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing to be gained at a homebrew level from this ridiculous experiment.
 
There is not difference between a sanitize and a disinfectant. At least not recognized by any source that matters.

Yes there is. The CDC, EPA, the Department of Defense, most (all?) state health departments, most commercial manufacturers, and those in the cleaning industry all draw a distinction between disinfecting and sanitizing.

Sanitizing: Reducing germs on inanimate surfaces to levels considered safe by public health codes or regulations.

Disinfecting: Destroying or inactivating most germs on any inanimate surface.

Disinfectants kill more germs than
sanitizers. In most cases, a cleaning product is
used first. Then the surface is either sanitized or
disinfected when it is necessary



https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/ece_curriculumfinal.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/school/cleaning.htm

http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmcph...ecting-Appropriate-Sanitizer-Disinfectant.pdf

https://www.pakeys.org/uploadedContent/Docs/ERS/Sanitizing and Disinfecting Flyer 2016.pdf

http://www.cleanlink.com/cp/article...n-Cleaning-Sanitizing-and-Disinfecting--14213
 
Doesn't anybody know about in-place steam disinfection?

I wonder what the motivation of the OP is...as Weezy mentioned why no Cyrillic script?
 
StarSan is not meant to be used in a perti dish. It's a surface sanitizer. You should always clean the surface to reduce the amount of bacteria and to allow the sanitizer access to any remaining bacteria.

This test seems does not seem relative to a homebrewer.
 
Anything labeled as a sanitizer or disinfectant must obtain an EPA regulated label, which requires verified data to support the label. Cleaners and cleansers don't require a label. This is why One-Step is a no-rinse cleanser not a no-rinse sanitizer. It might act like a sanitizer but without a label it can't be called one legally.

Also sanizing in a liquid is much different than surface sanitizing. Not easier just different.
 

I will look at your links later but my initial inclination is that the term sanitizer is meaningless being that a disinfectant is not required to kill "most" microorganism to be approved as one, meaning the is no actual difference other than validation status.
 
This result is not surprising. A forum member, S. Cerevisiae, pointed out that StarSan is ineffective on mold and spores. He recommended a weak bleach solution, but I can't go there do to its potential effects on beer flavor. Iodophor is another halogen-based sanitizer that has been widely used in the food service industry. Other than its plastic staining tendencies, Iodophor is a pretty good sanitizer for brewery use.

But I do believe that we are all better off by varying our sanitizer use. That can include occasional use of StarSan, bleach, peracetic acid, etc. All have their benefits and drawbacks, but they are more likely to provide you with a broad spectrum of protection from brewery contaminants.

For now, Iodophor has returned to being my primary sanitizer with the others as pinch-hitters!
 
@mabrungard, not to hijecak this thread but I'd like to hear your reasons for using Iodophor as your primary bug killer over StarSan. Maybe you've discussed it elsewhere and can direct me to that thread?
 
I will look at your links later but my initial inclination is that the term sanitizer is meaningless being that a disinfectant is not required to kill "most" microorganism to be approved as one, meaning the is no actual difference other than validation status.

No offense, but everyone in the industry and the government agencies that regulate this stuff, all draw that distinction. Why do we care what your inclination on this is?

After rereading this, it is not coming across as I intend. In other words, what are your qualifications that make you suited to disagree with the industry standards?
 
No offense, but everyone in the industry and the government agencies that regulate this stuff, all draw that distinction. Why do we care what your inclination on this is?

After rereading this, it is not coming across as I intend. In other words, what are your qualifications that make you suited to disagree with the industry standards?

I am a pharmaceutical microbiologist, 15 years experience in biodecontamination programs including disinfection, SIP/CIP and VHP systems

After a quick google I see where the confusion has occurred.

Santizer is a EPA coined term (recognized by the FDA). Outside the EPA the term isn't used instead sanitization is used (to mean the application of a disinfectant)

Here is a link to the test requirements for classification of something as a sanitizer according to the EPA

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150-0022

You will see StarSan is a food contact santizer (non-Halide) and therefore only has to demonstrate kill of Staph Aureus and E.Coli at 99.999%. So that would be a >5 log reduction, i.e you would need to start with 10E5 cfu and get nothing on the plate.

So I will retract my initial statement in that technically according to the EPA StarSan is a sanitizer and not a disinfectant.

However if you look at the EPA guidence on disinfectant validation you will see that isn't a huge difference

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150-0021

Infact the standards as to what qualifies as a disinfectant according to the EPA is pretty low.

In the UK the distinction between santizer and disinfectant isn't made. Instead when registering they need to comply with the BS EN guidance (this also applies to US companies selling in the UK or internationally since its a widely recognized and robust set of guidance)

I can't link the papers because you have to pay but here is a basic summary

http://www.saniswiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Sani_Fiche_normes_EN.pdf

You will see here that the requirement is more exhaustive. (though it doesn't list test strains there are multiple in each test)

So we have short of come back around and I find myself after a brief look at US regs agreeing with you.

However the idea that a disinfectant kills most things is miss leading, because they don't.

That's actually called a biocide. What also confused me is something like VHP is classed as "sanitization" which is the term recognized by in EU GMP and the FDA as anything that not quite sterilization yet VHP well exceeds all the test criteria for a disinfectant both EPA and BS EN
 
StarSan is not meant to be used in a perti dish. It's a surface sanitizer. You should always clean the surface to reduce the amount of bacteria and to allow the sanitizer access to any remaining bacteria.

This test seems does not seem relative to a homebrewer.

Presumably they do a suspension test first to provide contact time. Then they dilute on to the plate.

The agar will probably contain neutrilizers which will cease further sanitization but the starsan should have done its work by then.
 
Why are Russian homebrewers using English script?
If you are talking about species' names (Candida, Klebsiella etc.), it's not English, it's Latin which is an international biology classification language. If you are really suspicious take a close look at the plates from the second picture, they do have cyrillic letters to mark sections ('С=Старсан', 'К=Катрил', 'П=перекись водорода').

Presumably they do a suspension test first to provide contact time. Then they dilute on to the plate.
First the 50 mcl of each culture (spores in case of B. subtilis) were prepared by "turbidity industrial standard" (just citing and translating word-by-word here, pretty sure I should've used different terms), after that they were suspended in 5 ml of desinfectant/sanitizer for 20 minutes, after that centrifuged, washed and 50 mcl of each were plated.
 
Mmm its not clear as to the methodology,.

I can only think "turbidity industry standard" is subculture and subsequent serial dilution to known turbidity against a standard using either a McFarlan standard or a photo spectrometer.

Does it state the inoculum as cfu or any details of a positive control plate?

I am also concerned about the ratio or starsan to suspension and the dilution effect.

The washing/centrifuging isn't standard. If you was worried about residue inhibition you would normally do membrane filtration.

As I said earlier the results of the gram neg was surprising. B spores not at all.

I might see if I can do some validation at work, we have a student coming in to do validation on hypochlorous acid so might sneak some starsan in too.
 
I might see if I can do some validation at work, we have a student coming in to do validation on hypochlorous acid so might sneak some starsan in too.

If you are curious to do a validation, a copy of the EPA recognized method AOAC 960.09 is available here: http://www.osti.ca/research/Methods/AOAC 16th Edition/PDFS/960/M960_09.PDF

You are correct about the industry turbidity standard, it is indeed a spectrophotometric method.

Of course there is more than one way to skin a cat, and the AOAC methods tend to be very rigid an complicated. I believe that they chose the test organisms because they are representative of contaminants in the food industry. As you stated earlier, it is not surprising that the sporeformers showed resistance to the StarSan.

I usually cringe when people use the term "sterile", as the ISO definition is "free from viable microorganisms". That and the fact that a sterilant has to jump through a completely different set of hoops (AOAC 966.04) to be registered as a sterilant.
 
...our final goal when we sanitise our homebrewing equipment is to get rid of all the nasty creatures...

This might be a key misunderstanding right here. Our goal when we sanitize is never to get rid of ALL the nasty creatures - if it was, we'd all be autoclaving everything that touches chilled wort.

The goal is to kill the vast majority of the nasty creatures prior to pitching the good ones (yeast), so that the yeast never have to outcompete those nasties.

Any kind of bacteria or microbe, given a little time, will grow back to significant cell count if you kill the vast majority, but not all, of them, thanks to the concept of geometric growth.

Starsan, or any other other homebrew sanitizer, is made to kill the vast majority of microbes, not to wipe out ALL of them, so this study isn't a surprise in the least.

What may be a more interesting study is to see culture growth over time, or even more interesting to see a mixed culture in typical proportions - sanitize the bad microbes, introduce yeast at a typical pitching concentration, and see if the yeast outcompetes as we're taught to believe it will.
 
I'd like to hear your reasons for using Iodophor as your primary bug killer over StarSan.

The bottom line is that Iodophor is more likely to keep mold and spores off your equipment and StarSan doesn't. When I leave my fermenter drained, but still containing the dregs of the last brew, I noticed that there would be spots of mold growing around the yeast ring in the fermenter. Now that I've switched to using Iodophor most of the time, I haven't seen mold in the fermenter. I don't believe I've changed any of my wort, yeast, or other habits, so I believe that the sanitizer change was useful.
 
I use a 3000ppm concentration of chlorine dioxide.

It's lovely.

Your message caused me to investigate further. Chlorine Dioxide is not a bad option. It can also be used for yeast washing and its efficacy is reported to be better than acid washing. It appears to be great for general brewery disinfection too.

It appears to be easy enough to use. Get some sodium chlorite powder and mix with water.
 
Your message caused me to investigate further. Chlorine Dioxide is not a bad option. It can also be used for yeast washing and its efficacy is reported to be better than acid washing. It appears to be great for general brewery disinfection too.

It appears to be easy enough to use. Get some sodium chlorite powder and mix with water.

Mixing sodium chlorite with water will not make chlorine dioxide - it typically requires an acid.
Chlorine dioxide can not be safely transported so is typically generated on-site.

For large scale use (more than 15 pounds per day - generally at drinking water plant scales - treating more than 1 million gallons daily), it can be made by using hypochlorite, hydrochloric acid and sodium chlorite solution. Also: very concentrated sulfuric acid and sodium chlorite. It can also be generated by mixing the right proportion of chlorine gas with sodium chlorite - but this option is falling out of favor due to the challenges of transporting and storing chlorine gas...

For smaller concentrations, more typically used on a brewing scale it can be made with dilute hydrochloric acid and sodium chlorite.

Chlorine dioxide is a safe and practical sterilizer and no-rinse disinfectant for any scale brewery. It removes odor and taste from the water supply, disinfects without forming tri-halo -methagens, is suitable for preventing bio-fouling or algae buildup in cooling towers, is a great no-rinse option for use in the packaging of beer, is one of the best options for washing yeast, etc.

If anyone is interested in more information with respect to chlorine dioxide in the brewing industry, send me a private message.
 
Mixing sodium chlorite with water will not make chlorine dioxide - it typically requires an acid.

Umm, I think I have plenty of acid. I was well aware of the solution's pH requirement to actually evolve chlorine dioxide. I see that some references recommend using citric acid as the pH adjuster in food-grade use. I'm not sure that is a good choice if the tap water's alkalinity is high, but I'm wondering if there is some sort of synergy created from the citrate anion? The only advantage I see with citric is that it too is available as a solid.
 
Umm, I think I have plenty of acid. I was well aware of the solution's pH requirement to actually evolve chlorine dioxide. I see that some references recommend using citric acid as the pH adjuster in food-grade use. I'm not sure that is a good choice if the tap water's alkalinity is high, but I'm wondering if there is some sort of synergy created from the citrate anion? The only advantage I see with citric is that it too is available as a solid.

The only thing i know that you are aware of is what you have stated; "Get some sodium chlorite powder and mix with water". The ClO2 generators that I work with are NSF-61 certified. Hopefully tour internet queries has not lead you down the path of the pseudoscience of MMS. Neither the FDA or USEPA support MMS, and there have been multiple legal cases brought against people using it.

Using citric acid (CA) is a slower reaction than using HCl or H2SO4. Also when using CA the reaction requires an excess of acid and also doesn't result in the same yield conversion as Cl2/NaClO2 or HCl/NaClO/NaClO2 or H2SO4/NaClO2.

I have not seen commercial examples of CA used as the acid for on-site ClO2 production, and would run some testing to ensure that the reaction was not too exothermic, that there would be no THM or HAA produced, and that citric acid residual would not be detrimental to the water flavor profile.
 
Full disclosure: Chlorine dioxide is toxic, hence limits on exposure to it are needed to ensure its safe use. Probably not a good home brew solution without the right knowledge and equipment.
 
MMS?? It only took a few seconds to find it. Anything that uses the word "Miracle" has got to make anyone think it's true...right?

Using a ClO2 generator seems unappealing to most homebrewers since that means spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a piece of equipment. At this point, the sodium chlorite option would be the only method a homebrewer is likely to consider. All you need is food-grade sodium chlorite, water, and some form of acidification to bring the water pH down into the 4.5 to 5.0 range. (It does turn out that the Water Acidification calculator in Bru'n Water is perfect for that).

PS: Don't use anything that uses the term "MMS".
 
The only thing i know that you are aware of is what you have stated; "Get some sodium chlorite powder and mix with water". The ClO2 generators that I work with are NSF-61 certified. Hopefully tour internet queries has not lead you down the path of the pseudoscience of MMS. Neither the FDA or USEPA support MMS, and there have been multiple legal cases brought against people using it.

Using citric acid (CA) is a slower reaction than using HCl or H2SO4. Also when using CA the reaction requires an excess of acid and also doesn't result in the same yield conversion as Cl2/NaClO2 or HCl/NaClO/NaClO2 or H2SO4/NaClO2.

I have not seen commercial examples of CA used as the acid for on-site ClO2 production, and would run some testing to ensure that the reaction was not too exothermic, that there would be no THM or HAA produced, and that citric acid residual would not be detrimental to the water flavor profile.
Hi. After reading this thread with interest, I did my own Google Foo and found this Birko site that was very informative relative to using Chlorine Dioxide in a brewery environment. An extract from that site states:

"For brewers, activation of the sodium chlorite solution with food grade acid is recommended to generate the chlorine dioxide. In one method of activation, citric, lactic, or phosphoric acid is added to drop the pH of the water to between pH 4.5-5. The sodium chlorite is then added to the acidified water to generate chlorine dioxide. This method works well for small volumes of water or with soft water."

I think the biggest disadvantage of using using Chlorine Dioxide by homebrewers is that it's only good for a short while and must be prepared for each use. StarSan and Iodophor can be prepared, stored, and retain their sanitizing properties for a long time. Ed
:mug:

ETA: @brewbama also stated another very obvious reason for not using it in our home breweries.

Full disclosure: Chlorine dioxide is toxic, hence limits on exposure to it are needed to ensure its safe use. Probably not a good home brew solution without the right knowledge and equipment.
 
Hi. After reading this thread with interest, I did my own Google Foo and found this Birko site that was very informative relative to using Chlorine Dioxide in a brewery environment. An extract from that site states:

"For brewers, activation of the sodium chlorite solution with food grade acid is recommended to generate the chlorine dioxide. In one method of activation, citric, lactic, or phosphoric acid is added to drop the pH of the water to between pH 4.5-5. The sodium chlorite is then added to the acidified water to generate chlorine dioxide. This method works well for small volumes of water or with soft water."

I think the biggest disadvantage of using using Chlorine Dioxide by homebrewers is that it's only good for a short while and must be prepared for each use. StarSan and Iodophor can be prepared, stored, and retain their sanitizing properties for a long time. Ed
:mug:

ETA: I think @brewbama also stated another very obvious reason for not using it in our home breweries.

The units that I work with produce ClO2 in a fast and efficient way on-demand. However, they are admittedly designed to produce at least 10g/hr; which, though small, is probably more effective if used on a pico/micro brew scale.

The idea is that the unit is connected to the dedicated water line used for the process requiring ClO2. For example a unit would be connected to the bottling rinse water supply, when water flows the force of the flowing water creates a vacuum (Bernoulli's principle) that sucks precursors into the ClO2 generator and mixes them at the right proportion. This is a nice fail-safe design.
 
Full disclosure: Chlorine dioxide is toxic, hence limits on exposure to it are needed to ensure its safe use. Probably not a good home brew solution without the right knowledge and equipment.

This is true. You need a qualified water professional, in the same way that you wouldn't try to wire up your own 240V 3phase power without being/consulting an electrician.
 
MMS?? It only took a few seconds to find it. Anything that uses the word "Miracle" has got to make anyone think it's true...right?

Using a ClO2 generator seems unappealing to most homebrewers since that means spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a piece of equipment. At this point, the sodium chlorite option would be the only method a homebrewer is likely to consider. All you need is food-grade sodium chlorite, water, and some form of acidification to bring the water pH down into the 4.5 to 5.0 range. (It does turn out that the Water Acidification calculator in Bru'n Water is perfect for that).

PS: Don't use anything that uses the term "MMS".

We supply these units in the $20K range, and they are intended for commercial use. Typically we provide them as part of a buy, own, operate (BOO) program, charging a fixed fee per month to include equipment, chemical, and service. It is an economical and efficient option for breweries. This process and equipment is used by Budweiser, MillerCoors, and Sierra Nevada - however this can easily be scaled and made affordable to smaller sized brewing facilities.

And if you happen to be designing and building these units you might even have the wherewithal to make use of one for your personal needs...
 
Why do we use Starsan when even the company that makes it says it hasn't been tested on yeast?

I personally am more concerned about wild yeast and mold contaminating my beer than e. Coli....

From 5-star themselves (remember, they're the same company that created that snake oil "5.2" product)

Hi Christina,

Thank you for contacting Five Star. I spoke to our chemist and Starsan has not been tested on yeast. So, we can not say if it does or doesn't kill yeast. Our chemist also said that yeast is a larger organism, so typically the cleaners will take care of the yeast and the sanitizer takes care of the smaller bacteria such as e coli. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks,

Rebecca Ozirsky
Five Star Chemicals & Supply, Inc.

https://club.coopers.com.au/coopers-forum/topic/16003/?page=1
 
We use it because we clean and then sanitize. Your cleaning takes care of the huge majority of the work, sanitiser comes behind that and takes care of the majority of the left overs, and then alcohol and pH does the rest
 
I'm willing to bet the dozens of microbreweries I've been to over the years that seem to have minor, but persistence, infection issues are probably using Starsan.....thinking that it's more effective than it actually is.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top