[PSA] Janoshik is not what most of this community thinks it is
Janoshik is not what most of this community thinks it is. If you already knew this, the post is not for you and you can scroll on. FGP BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Janoshik came back 97.7% against a claimed 97.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do. Chain of…
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
date of analysis matters as much as the number
three lots beats three tests on one lot
On inter-lab disagreement, which generates more heat here than anything else.
Two services running different gradients, integrating differently, at possibly different wavelengths, will not produce identical numbers on the same material. A point either way is ordinary. Half a point is close agreement.
The productive response to a gap that size is to post both results with both methods and let the log accumulate. The unproductive response is to pick the lower number, call it the truth, and open a dispute. Members have done the first for long enough now that the bands in the vendor tables are genuinely informative.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.