Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services

[Ghoul]

So, what would you suggest?

For us the limiting factor for GCMS screenings is labor - we simply don't have enough people to go through the spectra one by one and interpret them for people.

I can imagine something along the lines of "GCMS screening AAS oils - no interpretation - raw data attached only - 120 USD." with bulk discounts etc ofc.

Then the community can work the spectra fingerprints etc themselves.

What do you think?

"Learns from your manual integrations to mimic and adapt over time, reducing manual workload by up to 75%."

https://www.agilent.com/en/product/software-informatics/mass-spectrometry-software/data-analysis/ai-peak-integration-for-masshunter

Time to plan for AI driven layoffs efficiencies like every other company

 

[janoshik]

Integration is not interpretation unfortunately

 

[sionnach]

So, what would you suggest?

For us the limiting factor for GCMS screenings is labor - we simply don't have enough people to go through the spectra one by one and interpret them for people.

I can imagine something along the lines of "GCMS screening AAS oils - no interpretation - raw data attached only - 120 USD." with bulk discounts etc ofc.

Then the community can work the spectra fingerprints etc themselves.

What do you think?

I'd be down with that, but I'm not sure how many other GC analysts hang out on meso to help @readalot keep an interpretations thread active. I worry it might lead to you getting bombarded with questions from noscience midwits. @readalot would have to collect an appropriate amount of reference data first, or it could get counterproductive real quick.

 

[Ghoul]

Integration is not interpretation unfortunately

How about this?


View: https://youtube.com/shorts/iZLk3AM58wc


It looks like a very efficient process

"Identify known and possible protein drug excipients and potential contaminants"

 

[Photon]

So, what would you suggest?

For us the limiting factor for GCMS screenings is labor - we simply don't have enough people to go through the spectra one by one and interpret them for people.

I can imagine something along the lines of "GCMS screening AAS oils - no interpretation - raw data attached only - 120 USD." with bulk discounts etc ofc.

Then the community can work the spectra fingerprints etc themselves.

What do you think?

What does the raw data include?
This for example, does it include the graph or the table as well?

Janoshik Analytical

Will your team be able to help with false positives?

 

[DinoBB76]

What does the raw data include?
This for example, does it include the graph or the table as well?

Janoshik Analytical

Will your team be able to help with false positives?

How do you know if it's a good test? What data or parameters should be analyzed?

 

[readalot]

15 minutes

30 min

 

[readalot]

What does the raw data include?
This for example, does it include the graph or the table as well?

Janoshik Analytical

Will your team be able to help with false positives?

My read is you would get the raw data file like you posted with the chromatographic peaks (GC) plus TIC (MS) like you see (in the table) plus all the raw mass spectra for each GC peak.

Jano also provides tentative compound ID via NIST ref library, which can be very wrong. That's where his team and their interpretation of the mass spectra comes in.

You guys are right this could get real ugly real fast with people asking on here for someone to interpret all their shit for free.

Anyway it is a very nice offer @janoshik has put forth here. Thank you Peter.

 

[readalot]

So, what would you suggest?

For us the limiting factor for GCMS screenings is labor - we simply don't have enough people to go through the spectra one by one and interpret them for people.

I can imagine something along the lines of "GCMS screening AAS oils - no interpretation - raw data attached only - 120 USD." with bulk discounts etc ofc.

Then the community can work the spectra fingerprints etc themselves.

What do you think?

It's an outstanding offer. Thank you very much for considering.

 

[readalot]

So, what would you suggest?

For us the limiting factor for GCMS screenings is labor - we simply don't have enough people to go through the spectra one by one and interpret them for people.

I can imagine something along the lines of "GCMS screening AAS oils - no interpretation - raw data attached only - 120 USD." with bulk discounts etc ofc.

Then the community can work the spectra fingerprints etc themselves.

What do you think?

Actually, you know what? I apologize for asking for a package discount for the HPLC/GCMS combo. People always want free shit and if you are going to get GCMS data you definitely don't want to make the wrong conclusions after going to all the trouble. False positives, etc like @Photon said.

What I should have asked for was additional fee so people can get a manual SME review of the tentative NIST IDs. Of course charge what you will for this add on. You are at full capacity so people should value more what you do. Perhaps grow your staff with the revenue?

My bad. Thanks Peter.

 

[Photon]

BA is actually *too* volatile to encompass in a screening which is supposed to show also high boiling point compounds, unfortunately.

Hi @janoshik

My understanding is that Acetone is way more volatile than b.a.
Does it mean it won't show up in GCMS as well?
Is there a better test for the presence of it?

 

[readalot]

Hi @janoshik

My understanding is that Acetone is way more volatile than b.a.
Does it mean it won't show up in GCMS as well?
Is there a better test for the presence of it?

We went around and around the residual solvent question. Good point.

Post in thread 'Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)'

Jan 13, 2024

Residual solvents (class 2 and 3 from USP) should be easy with GCMS/LCMS.

LCMS is not suitable for residual solvents, GCMS is, but it's not about the GCMS part only - you need a proper sample introduction system for highly volatile substances such as residual solvents.

This sample introduction system would be vastly different from the one used to introduce high boiling point, low volatility compounds such as anabolic steroids and you can't really have optimal performance with both, so it's not really that simple.

For us to become routinely capable of such testing we'd have to...

• janoshik

• 
• 

 

[janoshik]

How about this?


View: https://youtube.com/shorts/iZLk3AM58wc


It looks like a very efficient process

"Identify known and possible protein drug excipients and potential contaminants"

Efficient, but prone to errors.

GPT will then give you the ouput like "Linoleic acid has known link to cardiovascular disease." What it fails to say in the short summary is that you have to consume tons of it daily, not inject a ml once per couple days etc etc.

I think I will side with @readalot - despite there being an explicit claim the discounted GCMS is without interpretation, we'd be flooded with stuff like that.

What does the raw data include?
This for example, does it include the graph or the table as well?

Janoshik Analytical

Will your team be able to help with false positives?

The entire PDF at the bottom can be auto-attached via the software automation we have available (so graph and table too), but helping with false positives etc. would sort of break the point of it not taking our analysts' or my time.

Maybe charging 120 USD on top of that for extensive interpretation if the cheaper GCMS is ordered? No idea. just throwing it out there.

My read is you would get the raw data file like you posted with the chromatographic peaks (GC) plus TIC (MS) like you see (in the table) plus all the raw mass spectra for each GC peak.

Jano also provides tentative compound ID via NIST ref library, which can be very wrong. That's where his team and their interpretation of the mass spectra comes in.

You guys are right this could get real ugly real fast with people asking on here for someone to interpret all their shit for free.

Anyway it is a very nice offer @janoshik has put forth here. Thank you Peter.

Good take, appreciate it.

Actually, you know what? I apologize for asking for a package discount for the HPLC/GCMS combo. People always want free shit and if you are going to get GCMS data you definitely don't want to make the wrong conclusions after going to all the trouble. False positives, etc like @Photon said.

What I should have asked for was additional fee so people can get a manual SME review of the tentative NIST IDs. Of course charge what you will for this add on. You are at full capacity so people should value more what you do. Perhaps grow your staff with the revenue?

My bad. Thanks Peter.

I fear that too and me telling people to sod off is super bad for PR, despite me being booked 16 hours a day, half of it doing pretty much free consulting. I try to give back to the community, but being in touch and answering all questions is really taking a toll on me.

We've been doubling staff every couple months since last August, but there's a limit to how many people we can teach at once and there's growing pains too. 30 people now, but damn, if it's not more difficult.

But it's all in the planning.

Right now we're continuously expanding the team, the equipment (I think we have like 6 UHPLCs, CHNS, EDX, LCMS, GCMS with NIST etc etc) with HRLCMS in the works in the very near future and our own NMR in the mid-term. Looking at 5-10 million $ in investments in next year or two.

Hi @janoshik

My understanding is that Acetone is way more volatile than b.a.
Does it mean it won't show up in GCMS as well?
Is there a better test for the presence of it?

Acetone is more volatile than methanol and barely less volatile than dichloromethane. Those two are the solvents used to dissolve the AAS oils.

It's not practically possible to have GC set up to avoid sample solvent (DCM/MeOH), which is necessary, and detect those at once. Nor you can have GC set up to reliably detect extremely volatile compounds (acetone) and compounds barely volatile at all (steroids).

Simply can't have it all at once, unfortunately.

But about BA I think I'll work the method up a little bit so that it shows in the GCMS screening, that's a valid complaint, I'll try so Monday.

 

[janoshik]

We went around and around the residual solvent question. Good point.

Post in thread 'Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)'

Jan 13, 2024

Residual solvents (class 2 and 3 from USP) should be easy with GCMS/LCMS.

LCMS is not suitable for residual solvents, GCMS is, but it's not about the GCMS part only - you need a proper sample introduction system for highly volatile substances such as residual solvents.

This sample introduction system would be vastly different from the one used to introduce high boiling point, low volatility compounds such as anabolic steroids and you can't really have optimal performance with both, so it's not really that simple.

For us to become routinely capable of such testing we'd have to...

• janoshik

• 
• 

Well, if we do make the million dollar investment into an NMR, it can do residual solvent analysis as well. It's a bit of a waste of potential - but until we have it fully booked it's better than letting it go unused.

 

[Bobik]

Efficient, but prone to errors.

GPT will then give you the ouput like "Linoleic acid has known link to cardiovascular disease." What it fails to say in the short summary is that you have to consume tons of it daily, not inject a ml once per couple days etc etc.

I think I will side with @readalot - despite there being an explicit claim the discounted GCMS is without interpretation, we'd be flooded with stuff like that.

The entire PDF at the bottom can be auto-attached via the software automation we have available (so graph and table too), but helping with false positives etc. would sort of break the point of it not taking our analysts' or my time.

Maybe charging 120 USD on top of that for extensive interpretation if the cheaper GCMS is ordered? No idea. just throwing it out there.

Good take, appreciate it.



I fear that too and me telling people to sod off is super bad for PR, despite me being booked 16 hours a day, half of it doing pretty much free consulting. I try to give back to the community, but being in touch and answering all questions is really taking a toll on me.

We've been doubling staff every couple months since last August, but there's a limit to how many people we can teach at once and there's growing pains too. 30 people now, but damn, if it's not more difficult.

But it's all in the planning.

Right now we're continuously expanding the team, the equipment (I think we have like 6 UHPLCs, CHNS, EDX, LCMS, GCMS with NIST etc etc) with HRLCMS in the works in the very near future and our own NMR in the mid-term. Looking at 5-10 million $ in investments in next year or two.


Acetone is more volatile than methanol and barely less volatile than dichloromethane. Those two are the solvents used to dissolve the AAS oils.

It's not practically possible to have GC set up to avoid sample solvent (DCM/MeOH), which is necessary, and detect those at once. Nor you can have GC set up to reliably detect extremely volatile compounds (acetone) and compounds barely volatile at all (steroids).

Simply can't have it all at once, unfortunately.

But about BA I think I'll work the method up a little bit so that it shows in the GCMS screening, that's a valid complaint, I'll try so Monday.

Do I understand correctly that now the GCMS test does not show the presence of BA, even if the oil contains it? Thanks

 

[OldmemberNewcuenta]

how long is package usually stuck in warehouse before delivery? I paid the extra for the 2 day shipping but hope it didn't trigger some extra issues with their import customs, although I was under the impression this was entitrly legal for Jano to receive these packages.

 

[readalot]

Maybe charging 120 USD on top of that for extensive interpretation if the cheaper GCMS is ordered? No idea. just throwing it out there.

This is great idea. Combats the AI potential misinformation.

but being in touch and answering all questions is really taking a toll on me.

You gotta keep the boundaries and take care of yourself. Otherwise it will eat you alive. Be well Sir.

 

[readalot]

Do I understand correctly that now the GCMS test does not show the presence of BA, even if the oil contains it? Thanks

That's correct. But he is offering to adjust procedure so BA can show as a GC peak; folks may get BB and BA with GCMS. Awesome!!

 

[Bobik]

That's correct. But he is offering to adjust procedure so BA can show as a GC peak; folks may get BB and BA with GCMS. Awesome!!

I'm glad that he will fix it.... because the last GCMS test showed no BA in WWB's testosterone cypionate. I thought China was giving a shit about adding BA to their oils lol.

 

[readalot]

I'm glad that he will fix it.... because the last GCMS test showed no BA in WWB's testosterone cypionate. I thought China was giving a shit about adding BA to their oils lol.

That's why it is important to have the facts before making accusations. Well done!