[Lab] 18th independent test on HJ — 99.2% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
18th independent test on HJ — 99.2% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part. One vial, one service, one member paying, which is the only kind of result this board should treat as evidence. 99.2% and 99.0%. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour. My first certificate had a…
Net peptide content is the fraction of the powder that is actually peptide once counterion, water and residual solvent are accounted for. A 99% pure acetate salt can still be about 85% peptide by mass.
The PDF creation date being later than the analysis date is usually a re-issue or a re-export. It is worth one question and it is not evidence of anything on its own.
Water content 3.8%, acetate 6.2%, purity 99%, net peptide about 90% of label weight. All four numbers honest, and I had to read it twice.
Does the lot on the vial match the lot on the page?
Pushing back a little: a missing field is usually presentation, not concealment. Ask for the full document before drawing conclusions.
Removed — cropped document. Post the whole page or do not post it; the fields people crop are the fields that matter.
HPLC-UV and LC-MS answer different questions
post the whole document, not the headline number
Correction: that is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning, and the document says so if you read the row label.
net peptide content and purity are two different numbers on the same vial
Are the related substances itemised or is it a single total?