my sheet has 2 lots from MKM with a spread under a point, which is tight
🎉1🔥4😂12
#test-results 2025-01-27
Monday35 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- swab_dry_first — my sheet has 2 lots from MKM with a spread under a point, which is tight 19:10
- VialBot — New independent result logged — HJ, lot F-1330, purity 97.4% (Medutest). 19:34
- advance_fee_al — i told KP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 20:30
- underfill_uma — the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit… 22:01
- VialBot — Recon calculator: 30mg in 3ml = 8mg/ml. 22:04
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
🧊1
follow up update from 4 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
quick one what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
New independent result logged — HJ, lot F-1330, purity 97.4% (Medutest).
🎉10📈18
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
when did you buy it
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
nice result
test it again
[edited]how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
one data point
📈1
i told KP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
weigh it first
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 / 10mg99.4 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
log the lot number
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, i have it written down somewhere
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
Recon calculator: 30mg in 3ml = 8mg/ml.
thats not great
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
coming back after 4 months with a follow up result, where do i put it