small win: stability stopped being a problem at week 85
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 5mg to 1.7mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 19 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have constipation I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 24 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
stability after excursion is not zero, it is dose-dependent
stability after excursion is not zero, it is dose-dependent
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 99.2% on the same vial is normal.
Logger trace from my shipment: 8 hours at 25°C. Powder tested 98.0% against 99.1% claim. Tolerates more than the box implies.
lyophilised powder is far more forgiving than reconstituted solution
Yeah, data logger is the only acceptable proof.
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
time-at-temperature integral is the dose, not just peak temperature
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
a warm courier van is a bigger problem for a mixed vial than for dry powder
time-at-temperature integral is the dose, not just peak temperature
Adding to this: excursion is doing more work than the comment implies.
- 1controversial sort brought me here and it was worth it5 comments in this branch · started by u/honest_syringe33
- 2Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual…5 comments in this branch · started by u/ewan_tulloch