Removing the crud that carry the bugs is one key, so water, dish detergent, and perhaps alcohol at some concentration, plus physical friction might all help. Additional studies might add more information ... but that's what all scientists say.
A hot water flush achieves the same level of bacteria removal, as well as being cheaper and more convenient than alcohol, which use may impact the briar itself.
And soggy dottle? Any dottle should be removed fairly soon, but if you dry your tobacco, you won't have a soggy bottom. I gore-an-tee it.
Whichever is cheaper, it all works the same on your pipe.Any thoughts on 190 proof grain alcohol as opposed to the Isopropyl being discussed?
Those of restoring estate pipes may find this information interesting. I'm not posting this to as an argument that 70% is the "correct" way or that using 91%+ is "wrong." I'm not a scientist or in a relevant field and cannot competently comment on the findings in the article, so I simply present it as something of interest. There is also some information about rubbing and denatured alcohol.
Why Is 70% Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) a Better Disinfectant than 99% Isopropanol, and What Is IPA Used For? - https://blog.gotopac.com/2017/05/15/why-is-70-isopropyl-alcohol-ipa-a-better-disinfectant-than-99-isopropanol-and-what-is-ipa-used-for/
Interesting extracts:
The presence of water is a crucial factor in destroying or inhibiting the growth of pathogenic microorganisms with isopropyl alcohol. Water acts as a catalyst and plays a key role in denaturing the proteins of vegetative cell membranes. 70% IPA solutions penetrate the cell wall more completely which permeates the entire cell, coagulates all proteins, and therefore the microorganism dies.
Solutions > 91% IPA may kill some bacteria, but require longer contact times for disinfection, and enable spores to lie in a dormant state without being killed. A 50% isopropyl alcohol solution kills Staphylococcus Aureus in less than 10 seconds (pg. 238), yet a 90% solution with a contact time of over two hours is ineffective.
I used to work in the food industry. Want to know what the FDA considers acceptable in food production??
YMMV“When I was a little boy in New York City in the 1940s, we swam in the Hudson River, and it was filled with raw sewage. OK? We swam in raw sewage - you know, to cool off. And at that time, the big fear was polio. Thousands of kids died from polio every year. But you know something? In my neighborhood, no one ever got polio. No one. Ever. You know why? 'Cause we swam in raw sewage.”
not sure he's right about that. Not quite how the immune system works, though swimming in raw sewage might reduce contact with other children, and that might work.Not advocating this, but this thread brings to mind the classic George Carlin routine on germs and the immune system. If you can take a few “F” bombs and bathroom humor goggle:
“George Carlin germs” to see the full 6 minutes. I’d post a link but I am pretty sure it is not for general audiences.
Carlin’s approach:
YMMV
I'm still a newbie (18 months) and it was about a year before I would even consider smoking an estate pipe. Now, I have a couple that I smoke.I amazed that some of you guys find the courage to put a pipe in your mouth with all the concerns and phobias over germs and stuff.
The answer is that 90% (or 100%) is better for physical-chemical cleaning (if what you're cleaning is "tars"; if it's something water soluble then water is what will clean it); the reason that 70% alcohol is a better disinfectant is that alcohol isn't water, it's actually a "short fat" (properly said, an aliphatic compound). Although alcohol is water-soluble, it isn't itself similar to water, and so it isn't particularly efficient at entering cells (the cells of germs) like water is, and when it's pure it has many non-water properties. When alcohols are combined with water, hydrogen bonding between the alcohol and the water disrupt these intrinsic qualities of the alcohol and allow it to pass more efficiently into cells.I'd be interested to hear chemists discuss the 70% versus 90% difference in cleaning or sterilizing properties. Some chemical reactions and interaction are counter-intuitive, and it isn't always "more is better." And sometimes the reason for that is fairly simple to understand. In my case, simple to understand is good. It would be interesting to hear the discussion. Any chemists want to weigh in?
As much as I can. As a matter of fact, I have what I call a Pilate Complex: I wash my hands dozens of times a day.