[Lab] 24th independent test on CPC — 97.8% on a claimed 97.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
24th independent test on CPC — 97.8% on a claimed 97.0%, and the trend is the interesting part. I will put the method line and the batch identifier up front because that is what makes this checkable.
The relevant figures are 97.8% and 97.0%, and they come from the same log I have kept the whole time.
Storage conditions came back specific rather than generic when I asked. That told me somebody had actually done stability work.
Bought small on anything without a testing history here. That rule has never once cost me anything.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
- CPCPC source pageChinese Peptide Company Co., Ltd. · Hangzhou · 93% here, rank 12 · shop at chinesepeptidecompany.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Independent result added to the log — there are very few on that compound.
Asked for identity confirmation on an unusual line and got a mass spectrum with the theoretical mass alongside. That is the answer I now look for everywhere.
identity before purity, every time, for anything unusual
the sequence is the product, everything else is packaging
Correction: that name covers two different molecules and the thread has been discussing both as one.
Net peptide content on the certificate?
Net peptide content accounts for counterion, water and residual solvent. On some of these compounds the gap between purity and net content is substantial and entirely honest.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. In this catalogue that covers essentially everything, which is why the board discusses material and analytics rather than outcomes.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Agreed — and the naming problem is worse than most people here realise.
Sent an unusual compound to Janoshik because nobody on this site had ever posted one. 99.6% against a claimed 99.0%.
catalogue depth is not the same as catalogue quality
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.
[deleted]
research-use-only material is not approved for human use
the less-tested the compound, the more the identity test matters
- 1Independent result added to the log — there are very few on that compound.6 comments in this branch · started by u/tb500_tangent