[Unverified] Homopeptide net peptide content came in under claim — anyone else on this compound?
Flairing this Unverified deliberately. I have one result and one other member reporting something similar, which is not enough to call anything.
BPC 10mg, batch HP-2502, VendorInvestigate, 96.9% against a 98.0% claim. That gap is at the edge of variance and I would normally shrug at it. What I am less relaxed about is the net content, which came back lower than the label weight implies by more than water and counterion should account for.
They supplied a re-issued COA when asked, which is something, but nobody has explained the original. I am asking rather than alleging: has anyone tested this compound from this vendor?
best — the order this archive was captured in
Flair is right and the tone is right. For anyone about to escalate this in the replies: two reports and a re-issued document is "partially resolved", which is exactly what the source page says. It is not a confirmed anything.
The bar for Confirmed in this community is documentary evidence of the thing you are alleging. A gap you cannot explain is a question.
Worth separating the two findings, because they are not the same size.
96.9 against 98.0 is 1.1 points and inside inter-lab variance. Ignore it. The net content figure is the interesting one, and the reason it is interesting is precisely that almost nobody measures it — so there is no baseline to compare against and no way to know whether this is unusual for them or unusual for everyone.
this is the honest state of it. i have one number in a field where there are almost no numbers.
which is the argument for amino acid analysis becoming routine. if net content were on every document we would know within a month whether this is a vendor problem or an industry norm.
one in eight of my documents have it. if a hundred people asked on every order it would be standard inside a year.
then ask. one sentence per order. the collective nagging works, it has worked twice already on packaging and on water content.
separately: their warehouse fulfilment is genuinely excellent, three days and packed properly. the direct orders are the ones with the worse on-time record. two different experiences under one rating.
4/4 on time from the warehouse, 6/9 direct. averaging those into a single number is almost misleading and i say that about this vendor more than any other.
PeptideMeter, Medutest and VendorInvestigate have all verified them at some point, which is three of four services and more than most. that is context, not exoneration.
also worth saying this is BPC, where the naming and sequence mess in the supply chain is bad enough that "under claim" sometimes means "not quite the same product". edit: not alleging that here, just noting the compound makes the question harder.
- 1Worth separating the two findings, because they are not the same size. 96.9…5 comments in this branch · started by u/quant_not_qual