Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services

[Deleted member 134759]

Never mind it actually turned out to be pretty easy haha. I’m just lazy lol

 

[Rido]

8 days T/A and results. used Pirateship(Cheapest option)

Yea budday

When you plug in his address it can find it and autofill in the best one that matches

50 dollars for 1 week deliery
65 for 3-4 day delivery

 

[clearheaded]

I am curious if have any insight on what causes cloudy peptides? esp when adding another .5ml doesn't clear it up completely.

is it possible this is residual lipids from improper wash after using poor purity solvents?

have you seen any solvent/lipids residuals in tests of peptides? would think all the light solvents would evaporate however possible leave behind heavier oils.

Any reason why an easy way to narrow down what's causing the cloudy hgh/peptide would be to add a polar solvent(xylene etc) to the vile and shake and if goes clear, would this not indicate likely lipids/solvent residue is causing the cloudiness? or do you know with good certainty what typically causes it?

Thanks @janoshik !

on a side note, its a bit concerning when see labs use isopropyl as a final rinse for viles or beakers, as will leave residuals, this is LOOONG been known in hash making. while iso is good cleaner to get oils off they should ALWAYS rinse after with distilled water if want cleanest viles.(most distilled water you buy is far from mineral free just fyi, clean but def still ions and will conduct electricity just fine, but forsure good enough for intents here) point being may not be the best practice if want to avoid petroleum residuals for iso and because of surface tension often leave a fine residue vs drops of minerals like u see in water so harder to see.

 

[janoshik]

I am curious if have any insight on what causes cloudy peptides? esp when adding another .5ml doesn't clear it up completely.

Aggregates and low water solubility peptides (eg. wrong counterions).

Is it possible this is residual lipids from improper wash after using poor purity solvents?

have you seen any solvent/lipids residuals in tests of peptides? would think all the light solvents would evaporate however possible leave behind heavier oils.

How would lipids get there? There are no lipids in peptide manufacture afaik.

This ain't cannabis.

Any reason why an easy way to narrow down what's causing the cloudy hgh/peptide would be to add a polar solvent(xylene etc) to the vile and shake and if goes clear, would this not indicate likely lipids/solvent residue is causing the cloudiness? or do you know with good certainty what typically causes it?

Well, the first sentence is a bit difficult to decipher, but I believe you've meant to ask if there's any reason it wouldn't work. Yes, there is. I'm not particularly convinced most peptides and mannitol are quite soluble in xylene

 

[clearheaded]

lipids would be from impurities of the many solvents ie oils is what I meant by lipids.. may be part of why it appears random vials can be cloudy and others are not particularly HGH in same kit.. JUST a thought.

the idea would be have a layer of water of cloudy peptide(potentially lipids from impurity's of solvents used) and use the layer xylene to determine if in fact are lipids/oils by dissolving the cloudy portion of the cloudy bac water solution.

yes MANY organic solvents are used to manufacture peptides, a paper describes semaglutide of particular needs many in order to to manufacture, and purposes other glp1 segment/analog to use as easier to make and use lest solvents to make higher yield....at any rate, point being many solvents used, which could mean more residuals of heavier oils vs lighter solvents that would evaporate in freeze drying.

wouldn't aggregates slowly become dissolved after come apart?

Thanks once again for your time. VERY much appreciate your patients and time!

 

[lgrundy]

Wildly inconsistent.

A reputable manufacturer can put up extremely rare and difficult to make unstable biosimilar in good quality one batch and then clusterfuck of degraded ecoli puke the next one. One of the reasons why I shy away from recommendations.

I have tested a lot of MGF/PEG MGF and god, off the top of my head I am not sure if even a single sample tested as it should have had.

You don't really need a standard, when there's nothing of any relevant molecular mass in the vial.

I have tested ACE031 and we hit a jackpot a couple of times IIRC. No standard available, but that's where the usual rounds of LCMS / MALDI and qNMR come around.

if someone was deadset on finding mgf, how would you go about it or who would u go to

 

[Throwaway737679]

Jano where do I go to find your details for using your service? First time here with this but I can't imagine anybody would blame me considering the weight of the compound I'm question involved

 

[epote]

hi, I have results from the same batch of product (I mean the literal same bottle) that came out with a 10-15% variability on testing. Eg a tren enan dosed originally at ~223mg/ml came out once at 214mg and another at 232mg. Why is that? My guesses are:

1) normal margin of error in testing methods
2) sample sedimentation
3) not ideal calibration samples

 

[clearheaded]

first page/his website

yes margin of error is 10%.. averages are natures answers...

 

[janoshik]

lipids would be from impurities of the many solvents ie oils is what I meant by lipids.. may be part of why it appears random vials can be cloudy and others are not particularly HGH in same kit.. JUST a thought.

the idea would be have a layer of water of cloudy peptide(potentially lipids from impurity's of solvents used) and use the layer xylene to determine if in fact are lipids/oils by dissolving the cloudy portion of the cloudy bac water solution.

yes MANY organic solvents are used to manufacture peptides, a paper describes semaglutide of particular needs many in order to to manufacture, and purposes other glp1 segment/analog to use as easier to make and use lest solvents to make higher yield....at any rate, point being many solvents used, which could mean more residuals of heavier oils vs lighter solvents that would evaporate in freeze drying.

wouldn't aggregates slowly become dissolved after come apart?

Thanks once again for your time. VERY much appreciate your patients and time!

I'm no expert, nor educated, on manufacture other than solid phase, so I won't comment on that further, but aggregates seldom disaggregate by themselves. Meaning protein aggregates as in technical term.

Cheers

 

[janoshik]

if someone was deadset on finding mgf, how would you go about it or who would u go to

I wouldn't know. We don't gather such data.

 

[janoshik]

hi, I have results from the same batch of product (I mean the literal same bottle) that came out with a 10-15% variability on testing. Eg a tren enan dosed originally at ~223mg/ml came out once at 214mg and another at 232mg. Why is that? My guesses are:

1) normal margin of error in testing methods
2) sample sedimentation
3) not ideal calibration samples

Hello,

1) our stated permissible margin of error is ± 5%, which would mean range of 211.85 - 234.15 mg/ml for 223 mg/ml sample. Usually it's around 2%, 5% is quite rare tbh.
2) not sure what sedimentation means in this context, but we often see variability within the same batch of oils when it crashes / is sampled from non-homogenous vial. If a small aliquot of the sample for us (.5-1ml) is taken from a 10 ml vial and the vial is not perfectly homogenous and dissolved, the results will inevitably vary. It is responsibility of our clients to make sure they sample the sample (lol) from a perfectly homogenous liquid - heat and shake the vial before you take a sample out for us.

Cheers

 

[epote]

Hello,

1) our stated permissible margin of error is ± 5%, which would mean range of 211.85 - 234.15 mg/ml for 223 mg/ml sample. Usually it's around 2%, 5% is quite rare tbh.
2) not sure what sedimentation means in this context, but we often see variability within the same batch of oils when it crashes / is sampled from non-homogenous vial. If a small aliquot of the sample for us (.5-1ml) is taken from a 10 ml vial and the vial is not perfectly homogenous and dissolved, the results will inevitably vary

Cheers

5% is completely within the results I got from your. Thanks for the response

 

[janoshik]

first page/his website

yes margin of error is 10%.. averages are natures answers...

Thank you.

For different tests we have different margins of error - for common AAS it's ± 5%

 

[janoshik]

5% is completely within the results I got from your. Thanks for the response

It's exceedingly expensive and lot of times completely impossible to guarantee any lower margin of error.

Cheers

 

[epote]

It's exceedingly expensive and lot of times completely impossible to guarantee any lower margin of error.

Cheers

No it’s absolutely fine.

 

[Primoisthebest]

when I look at your site I see a Norditropin test that is like 95% and there are tests with ugl gh like optitropin that test higher. What is the reason for this and is there more to judging gh quality than %?

 

[clearheaded]

reason for this is purity of contents.

several known things go into quality, other theories aswell for unknowns. ALOT of discussion currently aswell.

 

[janoshik]

when I look at your site I see a Norditropin test that is like 95% and there are tests with ugl gh like optitropin that test higher. What is the reason for this and is there more to judging gh quality than %?

There's dimer and related proteins too, which I can also test for, then there is charged variants, endotoxin etc which can be used to judge the quality too, that I don't test for.

Purity is usually a really good indicator of quality. With dimer and related proteins it's plentiful to assess a sample imo.

 

[janoshik]

Sometimes capsule making goes really wrong.

transparent caps. beware.