How common is it for minor contaminants to be present in UGL products such as a testosterone cypionate sample for example?
That depends on specification of minor contaminants, but the easy and fast answer is - I don't know.
The long answer:
The blind common AAS oil analysis is analysis only for common anabolic steroids (well, the list we have at janoshik.com/details ). It doesn't test for anything else, so the only contaminants I can notice would be other common AAS found in oils.
Regarding those there are limits of detection.
Basically, I can't have the system setup to analyze both 0.5 mg/ml of eg. boldenone and 600 mg/ml boldenone. The available dynamic range of the process is simply not there and we're optimized for high throughput, so doing anything non-routine takes 10 times longer than routine analysis.
That's the first "hard" technical limit. Basically, if it's under 2-3 mg/ml I don't even see it because I'm not set up for looking for it at all. For drostanolones this limit is about tenfold, unfortunately, but such is life.
Then, the second issue here is, with degraded hormones, found more and more in the samples I test, you have the chromatogram littered with minor peaks - degraded hormone. Now HPLC/DAD, that we use for the routine analyses is pretty good at quantifying stuff and OK at identifying stuff. But what it really has had time of telling is whether one steroid molecule, that has retention time (peak position[time axis]) same as degraded part of other, extremely similar steroid molecule, is this or that.
Now, you have a sample of mildly degraded testosterone cypionate with a bunch of minor peaks, some of which could, or could not be other steroids. Even if they were, they'd be < 10 mg/ml. Now, the choice it to run other, more expensive test which provide high probability ID, such as GCMS, or consider the fact that even if there was minor contamination with other steroid ester - it would, ultimately not be a major harm reduction concern.
Napkin math and AUC drawing says, that even extreme examples, such as test p 100 mg/ml and test u 10 mg/ml mix, wouldn't yield any significant change in pharmaceutical effects or amounts present in the system.
So, facing the choice here - to maintain cheap, fast and available service I opt for the "best value" options for testing given the technologies that I use and am limited by. And we're talking about blind common AAS oil analysis - my default and go-to best value offered option.
Considering other set-ups testing laboratories have eg. TFA enriched MP for routine AAS testing, the detection limit for drostanolones must be insanely high and uncertain, or GCMS+NMR probably reading the above test p / u mix as 106 mg test p... I believe I've made a right choice.
So anyway, ultimately, the long answer is again, I don't know.
Do minor contaminants occur only in UGL products or also pharma products?
I can't tell what products are pharma or UGL.
I am not capable nor willing to discern that with testing, unless of course there are obvious issues with a fake sample.
Before people who are ignorant of the topic get started on the above, I'd like to point out that the pharma companies, manufacturers themselves, are sometimes not capable of telling the fakes.
What standards exist to determine acceptable levels of contaminants, if any level at all, in pharma products?
eg. raw testosterone enanthate
"Testosterone Enanthate contains not less than 97% and not more than 103% of C23H40O3"
Vague.
I can also see instances where oxandrolone samples with minor contaminant could be an issue for some consumers - and the information would be valuable.
Me too.
Thanks to the fact that every single out of the tens of thousands of samples I had issued reports for had been evaluated and issued by me personally I am able to judge those situations and do the extra effort with samples I deem suspect.
A 1 mg methandienone presence in 50 mg oxandrolone wouldn't concern me. In 5 mg oxandrolone it definitely would.
I do go out of my way for harm reduction, which is especially the concern with products traditionally used in female bodybuilding, but I can't do so with every sample without raising the costs, yet again making the cost/benefit ratio worse off in my eyes - thus ultimately, IMO, decreasing the harm-reduction impact of my service.
As far as your standard practice of lab reporting up until now, can you clarify the specific instances when you think contaminants are noteworthy beyond merely forensic purposes? And of course, when contaminants are not disclosed?
We have the usual detection cutoffs listed on our site -
https://janoshik.com/details/ - and such is the standard practice.
AFAIK, we are the only lab that has that listed publicly, although not in depth and extensively - just to give people an idea about how it works. Lab4Tox didn't share any details and specifics with me when I inquired and I don't take Analyza Bialeks made up numbers seriously enough to bother asking.
Regarding reporting substances below stated detection cutoffs:
1) when the usual dosage is expected lower [eg. anastrozole is detected and reported down to 0.1 mg]
2) When the amount is deemed significant in the context of the product [eg. 10 mg test ace in 6 ester testosterone mix, or 10 mg of 3 test esters in 50 mg/ml tren ace etc)
3) forensic purposes
4) there might be something I've forgotten. At this point in my life, I've ran, evaluated and issued insane amounts of samples. At this point it's automatic process for my brain.
Obviously, if it involves more work then you should certainly add it to the price list as an extra value added service.
Some people might not care as long as they get approximately what they expect but to others it could be worth paying extra.
Perhaps they should have the option to pay for it if you think it would be feasible practically and financially?
We do offer that under GCMS screening option in our price list already. However, the options of what all we can or cannot do are best left to specific inquiries - the possibilities are simply too many to list in a simple price list.
ie GHK-cu.
