janoshik
Subscriber
I assume the client has a reason to protect the email there, so no. You can ask them to have the client name anonymized and share the full report.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services
- Thread starter janoshik
- Start date
i understand. appreciate it.
janoshik
Subscriber
Urging an answer to emails in less than 24 hours does nothing other than bumping your email to to top of the mailbox again, thus effectively increasing the delay.
Please, refrain from doing so.
Please, refrain from doing so.
francescoforte
New Member
Hello, where can I found such information. how is GH tested by you. for example when you test GH vials do you consider that there are other excipients, do you consider interference factor? like some protective substances like for example glycin or trehalose (both of these substances have UV absorption peaks. These two interfering factors should be eliminated) and so one were added.
janoshik
Subscriber
francescoforte
New Member
I know that HPLC is used for testing (Because HPLC usually uses ultraviolet detectors for detection), because there could be excipients contains like glycine as a protective agent and others. This glycine has strong unexpected absorption, and HPLC needs to be manually excluded when processing report scores. Excipients cannot be counted as magazines for points.
So again my question is do you consider interference factor when count purity of GH in your tests or count as GH sample has only manitol for example or concider it is pure GH?
Last edited:
janoshik
Subscriber
The very point of HPLC is so that there is no interference, because you separate the components such as glycine in time, far away from the compounds of interest, such as GH and GH related impurities.
I think you are using wrong terms to ask your question due to language barrier and mean whether the excipients are counted into impurities, which they are not.
Not only mannitol, trehalose or other saccharides don't show on UV at all, the excipients that show are not counted among the impurities.
...only one stupid enough to count glycine used as an excipient as an impurity is @Dr JIM
janoshik
Subscriber
I prefer to stay on the safe side with my claims.
We do multiplicates and I have RSD for this particular sample available.
readalot
Member
francescoforte
New Member
The very point of HPLC is so that there is no interference, because you separate the components such as glycine in time, far away from the compounds of interest, such as GH and GH related impurities.
I think you are using wrong terms to ask your question due to language barrier and mean whether the excipients are counted into impurities, which they are not.
Not only mannitol, trehalose or other saccharides don't show on UV at all, the excipients that show are not counted among the impurities.
...only one stupid enough to count glycine used as an excipient as an impurity is @Dr JIM
so you claim that glycin and others like trehalose don't show on UV at all?
I think you also in fact has barrier maybe not in language but while asking your laborants, because when I asked about UV absorption peaks you did not understand and I needed to remind you that HPLC usually uses ultraviolet detectors for detection
francescoforte
New Member
was trying to analyse how your team makes tests for GH Janoshik Analytical
but there is now "raw data"
and results are confusing
like here Janoshik Analytical
you have 97% purity and dimers
and here Janoshik Analytical
you have low purity of 92% and no dimers.
this is confusing. which purity they indicate in reports at your site?
amount of GH in % comparing with other substances in vial?
but there is now "raw data"
and results are confusing
like here Janoshik Analytical
you have 97% purity and dimers
and here Janoshik Analytical
you have low purity of 92% and no dimers.
this is confusing. which purity they indicate in reports at your site?
amount of GH in % comparing with other substances in vial?
francescoforte
New Member
janoshik
Subscriber
"only mannitol, trehalose or other saccharides don't show on UV at all"
Does glycine sound like a saccharide to you?
no it doesn't in the region that GH is commonly detected at.
Please, don't be arrogant enough to attempt to school me when you are clueless.
I said we don't use standalone UV, which is a different machine to HPLC with UV detection, that lacks the separation component of chromatography, thus is susceptible to interference from other UV absorbing compounds, which is something you've mistakenly talked about due to your lack of mastery of English lanugauge, I didn't say we don't use UV/DAD for detection on our HPLC.
I think you are trying to lead a discussion that is above both your chemistry and language skillset and thus is of no benefit to either of us, so please, cease such attempts.
janoshik
Subscriber
Shame on me, but just two. When they come so close together, the statistical probability of both of them being way off is so low there's no reason to keep going. Don't think we've ever had to go above 6.
Method repeatibility is within 0.5% and our accuracy has been crossverified with Lab4Tox, which uses NMR which is an absolute method of quantification, so I'm rather confident in my stuff.
If you understand the nature of errors in NMR and HPLC, you can get a pretty good idea what to expect from either of the two laboratories that are working with scheduled substances legally.
francescoforte
New Member
Here your side mentioned that sugars have no UV absorption. This is correct. What you mean is that glycine has been separated. Not counted in points . Glycine has strong UV absorption. Trehalose and mannitol were not included in the calculation, but glycine was included in the magazine. You only need to specify the wavelength, and 220 nanometer wavelength detection is enough.
francescoforte
New Member
exactly, this is why I recommend to ask laborants more before reply
janoshik
Subscriber
You are either really really really stupid or an intentional troll.
Shame on me for giving you a benefit of doubt.
I'm leaning towards the second as you are a new account that blocked its profile immediately unpon registering, so I will kindly request that you sod off.
Shame on me for giving you a benefit of doubt.
I'm leaning towards the second as you are a new account that blocked its profile immediately unpon registering, so I will kindly request that you sod off.
francescoforte
New Member
while the post I wrote with links to your website is being moderated.
92% some purity of something
but here is 97% and too much dimers. how possible
how is it possible
92% purity and no dimers
97% purity and dimers
What kind of logic is this? 92% purity, what is the remaining 8%?
this is confusing. which purity they indicate in reports at your site?
amount of GH in % comparing with other substances in vial?
please ask laboratories you work with. thank you.
92% some purity of something
but here is 97% and too much dimers. how possible
how is it possible
92% purity and no dimers
97% purity and dimers
What kind of logic is this? 92% purity, what is the remaining 8%?
this is confusing. which purity they indicate in reports at your site?
amount of GH in % comparing with other substances in vial?
please ask laboratories you work with. thank you.
francescoforte
New Member
this is declared insult.
I am first time visit this forum.
I will look now deeply whom I talk to using info provided at your website
