purity — 7 things I got wrong before I got it right
purity — 7 things I got wrong before I got it right. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
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.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
How many separate lots does your series cover?
How many separate lots does your series cover?
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Disagree that this is a discrepancy. 99.0% against a claimed 98.5% is inside ordinary inter-lab variance in either direction.
Which service, and did you pay for it yourself?
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Batch number and date of analysis?
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
MKM BPC, batch matched the paperwork, VendorInvestigate came back 97.8% against a claimed 97.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
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.
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.
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
- 1How many separate lots does your series cover?6 comments in this branch · started by u/neha_rahimi