30 extra each pill
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services
- Thread starter janoshik
- Start date
readalot
Member
Great work by Jano purchasing the reference standard for Test E to chase this question down and put it to rest. Working on the weekend to answer these important questions for the community here (man after my own heart) 
.
Two carbons have to loose one to free themselves up for the loving embrace of a double bond.
But guess what I just did?
...
Thank you. It's been a pleasure interacting with you Sir. Appreciate all the support and unfortunate the legal issues around all of this stifles more free collaboration.
.
I don't think so. I think it's two H's though.
Two carbons have to loose one to free themselves up for the loving embrace of a double bond.
Impossible to tell without running GCMS on the reference standard as well.
Not entirely confident I did.
But guess what I just did?
...
Thank you. It's been a pleasure interacting with you Sir. Appreciate all the support and unfortunate the legal issues around all of this stifles more free collaboration.
Last edited:
MyNameIsJeff
Well-known Member
If AAS oil samples crash during transit to you, due to low temperatures, does that create a problem with testing? Or do you have a protocol for heating crashed vials?
I believe Jano is able to heat a crashed vial xD But it's a nice question I'm curious of the answer too
janoshik
Subscriber
If we can see it's crashed we always heat it up to dissolve it completely. (aas oils)
janoshik
Subscriber
Quick note: We've ran an aggregate test on a tirzepatide and found no detectable aggregates.
*shrug*
*shrug*
Ghoul
Well-known Member
Aggregates take time to form, post reconstitution. "Incubate" is the term I believe. The analysis I've seen of semaglutide had none immediately after reconstitution, detectable amounts after 3 days in the refrigerator and continued to increase in number and size with time.
Density ("viscosity") is another factor that determines the rate of aggregate formation, so how thoroughly the sample is diluted will play a role.
I'm sure Janoshik doesn't intend this to be taken to mean "tirz is aggregate free", case closed, since aggregates are formed dynamically, not "it's present or not" like other contaminants.
Think of very slowly forming crystals as an analogy.
I'm thinking of saving a vial of Tesamorelin from a batch I have for posterity which appears to go from clear to visible particulates forming after a few hours at room temperature. After being filtered again (.2) half a day later more visibile particles appear.
Last edited:
RintintinRedRocket
New Member
Two questions regarding testing of AAS.
First what volume of an AAS is needed to perform testing? For instance, can I place 3ml from a 10ml vial into a sterile vial for testing.
Second, is my understanding regarding AAS screening quantitative and AAS screening identification, correct? AAS screening quantitative identifies the amount of an AAS per ml and that it is the AAS, while screening identification testing only test if the substance is the AAS.
First what volume of an AAS is needed to perform testing? For instance, can I place 3ml from a 10ml vial into a sterile vial for testing.
Second, is my understanding regarding AAS screening quantitative and AAS screening identification, correct? AAS screening quantitative identifies the amount of an AAS per ml and that it is the AAS, while screening identification testing only test if the substance is the AAS.
iris
Well-known Member
janoshik
Subscriber
I know nothing of all that, we just accidentally put tirzepatide sample though SEC and thought it might interest someone. We usually test samples as soon as reasonably possible after dissolution.
Sterile vial is not necessary for AAS quantity / identity test.
AAS screening quantitative give you the common AAS present + their quantity while ID only only the list of present AAS.
Cheers
0.5 ml is plenty enough.
Sterile vial is not necessary for AAS quantity / identity test.
AAS screening quantitative give you the common AAS present + their quantity while ID only only the list of present AAS.
Cheers
MyNameIsJeff
Well-known Member
What's the typical turnaround time for endotoxin testing (of AAS oils or peptides)?
2 weeks
AJDC
New Member
This is very interesting.
Would Chinese UGL with 99% purity and low dimer would yield the same (or better) results in terms of muscle gain, fat loss, etc. compared to something like Serostim?
In other words, is Serostim or other pharma HGH a waste of money when we have very high quality Chinese HGH for much much cheaper?
Ghoul
Well-known Member
If money's no object than Pharma is still going to be superior for a myriad of reasons. Is it worth the premium for the vast majority? No.
Getting 95% of the benefit for 10% of the cost makes UGL the better choice in most in instances.
janoshik
Subscriber
readalot
Member
Truly awesome that you did this work @janoshik. Thank you and much respect. Nice to see the Test ester ref standard is rock solid with your GCMS setup.
Based on these data what do you take away about the Project 3 data for the Test C/Test E raws? Are -ene impurities false positives for API (active prohormone) with the HPLC?
Best regards.
Last edited:
janoshik
Subscriber
Given the standard had arrived on ice and was tested the same day it had arrived ( 20 kilo box for one such tiny vial! ) I would conclude that those are either false positives caused by the high temperature environment of the GC or that there's nothing that can be done about that if they can't get rid of it in CRM.
However much I'd love to charge more than double for all API tests, based on this particular anecdote of a test it seems that this is not a cause of concern.
However much I'd love to charge more than double for all API tests, based on this particular anecdote of a test it seems that this is not a cause of concern.
readalot
Member
Thanks for your reply. Respectfully, the difference between HPLC purity and GCMS purity (approximate via area counts, but no significant difference in ionization and volatility between the compounds) for the ref standard is quite small (~2%).
The difference is much greater for the raws of Project 3 if you normalize the area for API vs ~ene impurities on GCMS data, 70/82 or ~85% and 78/88 or ~89%) vs 96 to 98% by HPLC.
These results on the whole don't indicate HPLC purities for some Test ester raws are inflated since the peaks apparently aren't resolved (i.e., -ene impurity being counted in Test ester peak on HPLC)?
Summary on TE purity:
96%+ via HPLC
(78 to 89%*] range via GCMS
* 89% estimated by normalized percentage considering only API and ene impurity
Summary on TC purity:
98%+ via HPLC
(70 to 85%**] range via GCMS
**85% estimated by normalized percentage considering only API and ene impurity
Thank you.
Last edited:
readalot
Member
Got timed out. Continuing with results Janoshik shared today (post #1216)...
TE reference standard:
HPLC purity: 98%+
GCMS purity: 95.5%*
*No difference in volatility or ionization among the two detected compounds.
"Random" TE Client Sample:
HPLC purity: 98%+
GCMS purity: 96.2%*,**
*No difference in volatility or ionization among the two detected compounds.
**Pretty incredible no other compounds detected in this sample. It is as clean as the reference standard. Not a trace of raw material or free hormone. I don't understand this at all.
TE reference standard:
HPLC purity: 98%+
GCMS purity: 95.5%*
*No difference in volatility or ionization among the two detected compounds.
"Random" TE Client Sample:
HPLC purity: 98%+
GCMS purity: 96.2%*,**
*No difference in volatility or ionization among the two detected compounds.
**Pretty incredible no other compounds detected in this sample. It is as clean as the reference standard. Not a trace of raw material or free hormone. I don't understand this at all.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
