if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
#test-results 2025-09-17
Wednesday39 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- power_through_no — does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier 99.4 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question 22:46
- LC_MS_Lena — i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice, not advice obviously 23:37
- LC_MS_Lena — 98.1 against a certificate of 98.6 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question 23:45
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
coming back after 19 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
selection bias
❤️12📉15😂7
one data point
📉14
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
sorry to jump in my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
99.4 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
❤️15🤝3✅5
thats a fill problem
my sheet has 6 lots from QSC with a spread under a point, which is tight
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
✅3
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
thats not great
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
😂8✅2
which lab
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
🧊1
test it again
🎉1😂8
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
weigh it first
📈13❤️16🧊6
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
👍2
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
log the lot number
Reminder for power_through_no: dose day is today. Set 7 days ago.
📉9
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
log the boring ones
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 / 10mggenuine question update from 16 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
Digest for the week of 2024-12-26 has been published.
nice result
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1, anyway
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
attach the pdf
🙏17📈17
seven_five_sweetsample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let…
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice, not advice obviously
🔥1🧊8👍6
thats within range
98.1 against a certificate of 98.6 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
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💀3
follow up i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, from memory
❤️2