I'm not a biologist nor chemist, but worked for a while as a manufacturing and design engineer making laboratory equipment they would use so feel like I have slightly above average exposure to labs. I also took at least three undergrad classes in which we used bunsen burners in our labs. I have never heard this decontamination theory before and it sounds like BS.

Are there any practicing chemists or biologists on here? This sounds like something that would have been removed from actual laboratory practices a century ago and someone just wrote this quirky story for clicks, downplaying how much the practice is already long gone.

[–] k48r@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I've been working as a biochemist for over 25 years. The claim that burners "waft away bacteria" is absurd and I'd worry about the education of anyone who claimed so.

Sterility is (or at least was) usually created using alcohol or bleach. The flame was just for small tools. For example, when plating bacteria you'd wipe down the bench with ethanol or IPA. Sometimes for fun we'd burn the excess off, but that was mostly just for a lab goof. We used metal loops to spread the bacteria on plates, and those got flamed in between samples to clean them, sometimes after dipping them in alcohol. As others have said, nowadays most people use single-use plastic labware to do the same job. Most lab fire safety people ban burners for this type of general work.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 2 points 1 hour ago

In a corporate lab we would use bunsen burners just to ignite the alcohol on a glass spreader before spreading transformed bacteria. I was never a fan of the wire loops, but those would work too since they can cool quickly.

I have never heard a claim that the flame itself sterilized the broader area.

I also used the burner to make the spreaders by melting glass rods to have a triangle-shaped head. Those were fun times.

Edit: We also used to flame the head and necks of a flask before putting a sterile pipette inside. I guess that was to kill bugs lingering on the outside surfaces near the opening.

[–] Deconceptualist@leminal.space 7 points 3 hours ago

I worked for a university chemistry department for most of a decade and never heard this nuttiness. Sure of course the flame itself can quickly sterilize a small metal spatula or glass stirring rod when held over it. But definitely no effect on any other things in the room (like the air or bench surfaces?!) that aren't literally heated to a few hundred degrees.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 4 hours ago

Biologist. Absolutely the fuck not. This is some goop level candle-burning bullshit. I can definitely see how it would be a practice that someone does in a lab and then passes on to their students and so on.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 13 points 4 hours ago

I was trained as a chemist (but i don't practice professionally). I have never heard this claim either.

[–] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 9 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Open flames are not a thing in lab settings. It's too damn dangerous, would interfere with positive/negative pressure spaces, and sterility is now maintained with sterile single use items.

[–] Deconceptualist@leminal.space 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Burners are definitely still used in chemistry, but primarily in teaching labs and other situations when you don't require fine precision and just need to bring a solution to a boil, e.g. at the bottom of a distillation column.

But yeah reusable tools are generally sterilized in an autoclave or with UV. Especially something like a quartz cuvette that you wouldn't want soot on.

[–] buffing_lecturer@leminal.space 13 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Many scientists have long relied on Bunsen burners to decontaminate airspace and surfaces in labs. The burners’ flames were thought to create convection currents that carry microbe-containing particles away from the lab bench. Now, a study has found not only that the devices are ineffective at cleansing workspaces of bacteria-laden particles, but that they can even make contamination worse

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 hours ago

In order to do proper science you must remove the ethers from the environment. If fire doesn't remove them try one of the other elements, such as earth, or maybe one of the humors like black bile.

[–] Deconceptualist@leminal.space 3 points 3 hours ago

Thanks, saved me a click and a min or two.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Autoclave seems like a better choice.

[–] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

We need to filter air, not just in labs, but all interior spaces. Building codes should be updated. Won't happen, but should.