i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
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 / 10mgmy vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real, your mileage will differ
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
nice result
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
quick one log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
right so coming back after 26 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
whats the lot
posting my Medutest result on lot SG-1177, what do people make of it
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
sorry to jump in i told WWB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
certificate said 96.8 and the independent came back 97.4, is that a problem
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
when did you buy it
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
thats a fill problem
which lab
log the boring ones
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
test it again
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
thats not great
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure, anyway
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, from memory
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
my sheet has 2 lots from ERP with a spread under a point, which is tight
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
thats within range
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
[edited]quick one one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
do you test every order or sample it
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
New independent result logged — ERP, lot G-0641, purity 97.4% (PeptideMeter).
99.2 against a certificate of 96.8 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question