purity — 20 things I got wrong before I got it right
Thinking out loud about this: purity — 20 things I got wrong before I got it right.
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.
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.
CPC BPC, batch matched the paperwork, PeptideMeter came back 98.1% against a claimed 97.5%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
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.
What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
A single figure with no batch identifier is about a vial nobody can locate. Add the batch and it becomes about a lot. Add the claimed figure from the certificate and it becomes a comparison. Add the service and the date and it becomes reproducible. Say that you paid for it yourself and it becomes independent.
Five extra fields, thirty seconds of typing, and the difference between a comment and a row in the log that will still be useful in three years.
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.
gustav_cardoso is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
Disagree that this is a discrepancy. 99.2% against a claimed 99.0% is inside ordinary inter-lab variance in either direction.
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
Not convinced by the comparison. Different services, different gradients, and you are treating one as ground truth.
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
[removed by moderator]
date of analysis matters as much as the number
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.
- 1Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the…11 comments in this branch · started by u/thyroid_tangent