[Meta] proposal — a flair for identity posts
proposal — a flair for identity posts. This affects how posts get sorted and removed, so it belongs in the open. Naming in this space is inconsistent. Several widely used names map to more than one molecule, so a catalogue number and a sequence beat a common name every time. Why purity and net content diverge, and…
lead times on unusual lines are the thing to confirm up front
Agreed that thin testing here says something about the members, not about the material.
purity methods differ between compound classes
Small fix — that is net peptide content, not purity. Both are on the certificate and they differ substantially here.
identity before purity, every time, for anything unusual
Confirmed the lead time in writing before ordering a made-to-order line. It was longer than the site suggested and entirely reasonable once explained.
purity methods differ between compound classes
Disagreeing with this bit: handling for one compound does not transfer to another by default.
For any compound with a thin testing history, identity is the first question. Mass spectrometry against a theoretical mass answers it; an area-percent purity figure does not.
For any compound with a thin testing history, identity is the first question.
honest_syringe33 is right that a purity figure without a method is not comparable to one with a method.
That method was developed for a different compound class and would not resolve the impurities you are asking about.