[Vendor] SGN vs ERP on the same compound, same month — both cleared 97.0%
SGN vs ERP on the same compound, same month — both cleared 97.0%. I will put the method line and the batch identifier up front because that is what makes this checkable.
97.0% — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend.
Have now spent more on testing than on some of the orders. No regrets — the log is the reason I can buy without agonising.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
- SGSGN source pageSangon Biotech (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. · Shanghai · 95% here, rank 8 · shop at sangonbio.com →
- ERERP source pageShanghai ERP Biotechnology Co., Ltd. · Shanghai · 90% here, rank 18 · shop at erpbiotechnology.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity and relative quantity are separate claims and the log tracks both.
If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
HJ BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Janoshik came back 98.4% against a claimed 98.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.