net peptide content: i finally have a number and almost nothing to compare it against
Flairing this as a question deliberately, because I have one number in a field where there are almost no numbers and that is not enough to conclude anything about anybody.
BPC 10mg, batch HP-2502, VendorInvestigate, 98.4% purity against a 98.0% claim, and — unusually — a net peptide content figure as well. Net content is lower than the label weight, which is what counterion and water do to every vial of this stuff, and I asked the vendor to confirm the breakdown. They sent a re-issued certificate the same week with counterion and water content itemised, and the arithmetic works.
So the compound is fine and my question is different: what does a normal net content look like on this class of peptide? I have one document and nothing to hold it against.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Flair is right and the tone is right. For anyone about to escalate this in the replies: a purity figure above claim and an itemised re-issued certificate is not a complaint about anybody, and the source page records it as closed.
The bar for Confirmed in this community is documentary evidence of the thing you are alleging. A number you do not yet have a baseline for is a question, and questions are what this flair is for.
Worth separating the two numbers, because they answer different questions.
98.4 against a claimed 98.0 is a purity figure meeting its claim, which is the boring good outcome. The net content figure is the interesting one, and the reason it is interesting is precisely that almost nobody measures it — so there is no baseline to compare against and no way to know whether any given value is unusual.
this is the honest state of it. i have one number in a field where there are almost no numbers, and a vendor who itemised it when asked.
which is the argument for amino acid analysis becoming routine. if net content were on every document we would know within a month whether this is a vendor problem or an industry norm.
one in eight of my documents have it. if a hundred people asked on every order it would be standard inside a year.
then ask. one sentence per order. the collective nagging works, it has worked twice already on packaging and on water content.
separately: their warehouse fulfilment is genuinely excellent, three days and packed properly. the direct orders are the ones with the worse on-time record. two different experiences under one rating.
4/4 on time from the warehouse, 6/9 direct. averaging those into a single number is almost misleading and i say that about this vendor more than any other.
PeptideMeter, Medutest and VendorInvestigate have all verified them at some point, which is three of four services and more than most. that is context, not exoneration.
also worth saying this is BPC, where the naming and sequence mess in the supply chain is bad enough that "under claim" sometimes means "not quite the same product". edit: not alleging that here, just noting the compound makes the question harder.