coming back to this is endotoxin ever tested on research material
🔥1🤝1🧊2
#coa-reading 2026-01-30
Friday19 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
coming back to this a vial can be 99.4% pure and hold 8.1mg of a 10mg label. both numbers are true and only one of them is the one you care about
no lot no certificate
not evidence on its own
lot bought purity assay/label
A-2418 2025-03 99.1% 9.6 / 10mg
A-2601 2025-08 98.7% 9.8 / 10mg
B-0114 2026-01 99.3% 9.4 / 10mg
B-0329 2026-04 98.9% 9.9 / 10mg❤️2
i asked MKM for the method and they sent it. that alone put them ahead of most, ymmv
the three way match is vial, certificate, invoice. if all three agree you have something, ask me again in a month
for the archive no lot number on this certificate, does that make it worthless
update from 23 months ago: started asking every supplier for water content and about half now include it
is water content normally on a certificate or do you have to ask
the related substances table is the interesting part. a row of "not detected" means they did not look hard
thats the counterion
mixed fonts and inconsistent kerning in one document is worth a second look
does anyone actually check the residual solvents section
residual solvents matter more than people think for anything that went through a lot of purification steps
should a certificate say which instrument and method they used
transit-times.csv
428 rows · not retained in the public archive
an identical chromatogram on two different lots is the single biggest tell there is
sloppy not sinister
the honest summary is that a certificate tells you what the supplier says about a lot they chose to test
coming back after 18 months, has the pinned reading guide changed
i was wrong about this for a year: area percent under-reports nothing, it just answers a different question than assay does