[Lab] TFC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.4% against a claimed 98.0%
TFC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.4% against a claimed 98.0%. That is the headline. The document, the batch and the service are below so you can argue with the method rather than with me. Figures up front so nobody has to dig: 98.4% and 98.0%. Bought small on anything without a testing history here. That rule has never…
The three questions to ask before ordering anything from the long tail of a catalogue.
What exactly is it — catalogue number or sequence, not a common name, because several common names map to more than one molecule. How was identity established — mass against theoretical, ideally, rather than a bare purity figure. What are the storage conditions, stated specifically, with a state and a duration attached.
Then two commercial questions that save time: is this a stocked line or made to order, and what is the lead time in writing. All five are one email, and the shape of the reply tells you a great deal before any material moves.
[deleted]
Yes. Naming conventions in this corner are loose enough that the same word covers several different molecules.
Net peptide content on the certificate?
Net peptide content on the certificate?
Agreed — and the naming problem is worse than most people here realise.
purity methods differ between compound classes