[Lab] TFC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.3% against a claimed 98.0%
The claim in the title is exactly the claim I am making: TFC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.3% against a claimed 98.0%. Nothing implied beyond it.
Since the title puts numbers in the shop window: 98.3% and 98.0%.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
- TFTFC source pageTianjin Finder Chemical Co., Ltd. · Tianjin · 98% here, rank 1 · shop at tfcpeptides.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied certificate: the vial tested is the vial that arrived at a member’s door.
Disagree that this is a discrepancy. 99.0% against a claimed 98.5% is inside ordinary inter-lab variance in either direction.
Not convinced by the comparison. Different services, different gradients, and you are treating one as ground truth.
Nudging rather than removing: the standard template is in the sidebar and this post is missing the batch field.
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
How to build a series that means something, if you are going to spend money on testing anyway.
Three tests on one lot tells you about your measurement. Three tests on three lots, spread over a year, tells you about a process. The second is the one worth paying for and it costs the same.
Buy small, keep the batch numbers, send one vial per lot, and post each one with the claim next to it. After four or five you have something no individual review can give you: a band, a direction and a date range. That is what the source pages are made of.
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
How many separate lots does your series cover?
That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A two-year-old result is evidence about two years ago and should be read that way.
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
say whether you paid for it yourself
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
Which service, and did you pay for it yourself?
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity and relative quantity are separate claims and the log tracks both.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
- 1Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A…10 comments in this branch · started by u/britta_boateng
- 2That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same…9 comments in this branch · started by u/scam_taxonomy