Enhanced Testing Database

Respectfully, F you BBBG. Now I gotta copy links to your shit talk over here to MESO. More work for me (it's never done) cause you had to go get banned again.

Given my fairness, I have to port your criticism to MESO for you. Oh the burden of honesty, LOL.
 
Respectfully, F you BBBG. Now I gotta copy links to your shit talk over here to MESO. More work for me (it's never done) cause you had to go get banned again.

Given my fairness, I have to port your criticism to MESO for you. Oh the burden of honesty, LOL.
He was a good asset to here… should convince him to come over… I love how he teared new sources a new one….
 
Thanks for running this sample via GCMS. Curious, no precursor or side product was picked up. 91% purity by HPLC. Just the EQ and MCT/BB.
 
Thanks for running this sample via GCMS. Curious, no precursor or side product was picked up. 91% purity by HPLC. Just the EQ and MCT/BB.


Nice follow up by @MyNameIsJeff.

No precursor or side products. Apparently just BU (90%) and the carboxylic acid (10%) used to make API.

Very nice work testing this raw by GCMS @Qingdao Sigma Chemicals. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Devon One Stop Shop - Us Domestic
Customer blind test Bpc EndotoxinView attachment 311252
Fantastic we are getting some peptide data without any concern of oil interference. Thank you @mongo5165!

 
 
I know everyone focused on the raws shortage, "crisis', whatever right now. But let me take a moment to appreciate the win that the community got here today. Thank you very much for the GCMS testing on 3 raws @Qingdao Sigma Chemicals. 2025 and now we have GCMS data in hand thanks to a few members and QSC (should have 7 results at least in last few months). Thanks for your sample @Dirthand.

So far the most interesting results for follow up are still the Test E and Test C raws from Project 3. Time to put the -ene question to bed and determine if current HPLC method by Jano can distinguish between API and -ene impurity for Test E and Test C.
 

Another fantastic follow up by @MyNameIsJeff. Well worth your time to read the exchange.
 
Fantastic we are getting some peptide data without any concern of oil interference. Thank you @mongo5165!


Given endotoxin is expressed per ML, how many ML are being used to dilute these peptides for the test? Some peptides cannot (and most should not) reconstitute properly in 1ml, so is it until visibly clear? 3ml? 5?

I realize further dilution of the compound under test is part of the usual LAL proceedure, but what's the starting point of the "end user product" before it's diluted further?
 
Last edited:
Given endotoxin is expressed per ML, how many ML are being used to dilute these peptides for the test? Some peptides cannot reconstitute properly in 1ml, so is it until visibly clear? 3ml? 5?

I realize further dilution of the compound under test is part of the usual LAL proceedure, but what's the starting point of the "end user product" before it's diluted further?
For those that want to be confident in the quality of the data, I'd suggest following up with the company that took money to provide the testing.

There is also an open question on the method used to recover endotoxins from the oil matrix of injectable AAS. I invited the community to assist in that endeavor and am not aware of any takers yet.
 
For those that want to be confident in the quality of the data, I'd suggest following up with the company that took money to provide the testing.

There is also an open question on the method used to recover endotoxins from the oil matrix of injectable AAS. I invited the community to assist in that endeavor and am not aware of any takers yet.

I'll give you an example. If the peptide above coming back at .08eu/ml (which is below the sensitivity range of that test, but let's just go with it), and it was reconstituted with 3ml, and another peptide sample is reconstituted with 1ml and comes back at .08eu/ml, the first is really .24eu/ml if the two are equalized.

Normally, samples arrive for endotoxin testing in their final (properly) reconstituted form as would be used by the end user, or reconstituted according to the pharma instructions (the glaring lack of guidance with UGL is another can of worms and should be addressed, but I digress.).

So, that info is needed to make an apples to apples comparison going forward. I don't think 1ml would be appropriate across the board, perhaps 3ml would, though even then there are some high dose peptides that come in larger vials to accommodate even more water for proper reconstitution.

So it seems including "Reconstituted with X amount of Sterile Water for Injection" or whatever is used would be the way to report these results.
 
Back
Top