reading TB-500 threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
reading TB-500 threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments. Ordered under a name that turned out to cover two different molecules. Nobody’s fault but mine for not asking. Asked for identity confirmation on an unusual line and got a mass spectrum…
Independent result added to the log — there are very few on that compound.
Independent result added to the log — there are very few on that compound.
Agreed — and the naming problem is worse than most people here realise.
I would not treat catalogue breadth as a quality signal. It is a business decision, not an analytical one.
I would not treat catalogue breadth as a quality signal.
Adding the practical question — stocked or made to order, and what is the lead time.
Which exact molecule? That name covers more than one.
Naming in this space is inconsistent. Several widely used names map to more than one molecule, so a catalogue number and a sequence beat a common name every time.
Storage conditions came back specific rather than generic when I asked. That told me somebody had actually done stability work.
Storage conditions came back specific rather than generic when I asked.
bastian_aalto is right that a purity figure without a method is not comparable to one with a method.
Storage conditions came back specific rather than generic when I asked.
This is the rule for anything unusual. Identity before anything else.