Mass Spec Thread

[TheGuy85]

No offense, but its very easy to get away with running some tests if you're the individual responsible for testing. As a company it wouldn't be possible, but most of the time the bosses just don't care to ask or aren't around.

Nosey coworkers are the real concern. Its safer to test if you work night shift.

The process could be very easy for a person who has the keys and access to the chem lab at a university with the proper equipment. If said person could discreetly receive "unknown" samples to analyze and also discreetly receive the money for the service, I could easily see it happening and it could be potentially lucrative. Access to these services within the United States would be very limited and hard to find IMO, unless you knew "a guy" or you were "the guy" who had access to such equipment.

But I don't believe most people in these situations would take the risk. If your a university student with some leeway why risk your education and all the tuition you paid to test some gear. A professor on the other hand could do these tests quite frequently with little risk as long as they could ensure anonymity when receiving samples or payments for such services.

There should be harm reduction services out there offering this type of testing honestly (no clue if they exist in the states). Certain labs should have the leeway to charge a fee to test a sample and allow a person to know what is inside of it anonymously. I would assume a lab like this would make sure that samples are all properly logged and disposed of after analysis. These labs of course would have to be allowed to handle possible controlled substances for the sole intent of testing however.

 

[graniteman]

So do you think labmax is not as efficient in detecting. Goose? I have heard issue here lately.

Not to change or hi-jack the thread but labmax is a ''presumptive test'' only. I know I took the unpopular stance they are not a good answer to a bad problem. All you have to do is look at all the mixed and unclear results. A good example is when ALP's var came back bad, I have tried it and know it's legit. Var is one of the only ones that give me indigestion like crazy as well as subtle but noticable strength. It def WAS NOT winny, can't even touch that stuff but it came back as winny on labmax

 

[graniteman]

The process could be very easy for a person who has the keys and access to the chem lab at a university with the proper equipment. If said person could discreetly receive "unknown" samples to analyze and also discreetly receive the money for the service, I could easily see it happening and it could be potentially lucrative. Access to these services within the United States would be very limited and hard to find IMO, unless you knew "a guy" or you were "the guy" who had access to such equipment.

But I don't believe most people in these situations would take the risk. If your a university student with some leeway why risk your education and all the tuition you paid to test some gear. A professor on the other hand could do these tests quite frequently with little risk as long as they could ensure anonymity when receiving samples or payments for such services.

There should be harm reduction services out there offering this type of testing honestly (no clue if they exist in the states). Certain labs should have the leeway to charge a fee to test a sample and allow a person to know what is inside of it anonymously. I would assume a lab like this would make sure that samples are all properly logged and disposed of after analysis. These labs of course would have to be allowed to handle possible controlled substances for the sole intent of testing however.

I may be wrong but wouldn't a pure\verified control sample be needed?

 

[Burrr]

I may be wrong but wouldn't a pure\verified control sample be needed?

you must be following that thread on eroids

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

Not to change or hi-jack the thread but labmax is a ''presumptive test'' only. I know I took the unpopular stance they are not a good answer to a bad problem. All you have to do is look at all the mixed and unclear results. A good example is when ALP's var came back bad, I have tried it and know it's legit. Var is one of the only ones that give me indigestion like crazy as well as subtle but noticable strength. It def WAS NOT winny, can't even touch that stuff but it came back as winny on labmax

You need to be able to trust the person doing the test.. We have a few resident experts here.. I'd agree if you don't have a good feeling for the guy and that he knows what he's doing the tests aren't worth as much..

 

[graniteman]

You need to be able to trust the person doing the test.. We have a few resident experts here.. I'd agree if you don't have a good feeling for the guy and that he knows what he's doing the tests aren't worth as much..

It's still only a presumptive test J. Labmax states it on the test itself, for me that's not good enough to fry a guys rep

 

[graniteman]

you must be following that thread on eroids

Lol, no I wouldn't believe anyhting I read there. I had read on another forum a guy at eroids was offering ms testing. The pure sample is pretty much standard in all testing for comparison, least as far as my knowledge says.

 

[Burrr]

That's where myth is getting his MS reports from.

 

[graniteman]

That's where myth is getting his MS reports from.

Well I didn't mean to stir up a shit storm. I figured as much but wondered how anyone knows the company is on the up n up. It would be a immeasurable asset to all of us IF it's legit. But IME most things that are to good to be true unfortunately usually are

 

[Burrr]

The current discussion suggests that without setting a baseline using a USP pure sample that we can not get a purity percentage, and only a guesstimate of concentration.
It will let you know if the target drug is present, and if impurities are present, but will not provide an accurate result.

 

[graniteman]

The current discussion suggests that without setting a baseline using a USP pure sample that we can not get a purity percentage, and only a guesstimate of concentration.
It will let you know if the target drug is present, and if impurities are present, but will not provide an accurate result.

That's my basic idea of how it works. Thanks for the link

 

[brutus79]

That's where myth is getting his MS reports from.

no shit storm brother... everything should be/can be questioned respectfully as you have. done. to the best of my knowledge myth has used B.A. and I believe he has other ways as well. I do not trust A, yet I have nothing to not trust him for. I know some people who could mass spec for me, yet as previously discussed it would be too high risk vs profit to do quantity testing.

I will do some digging to see if I can come up with something more concrete as to the eroids / questionable nature of A and what tests might have been his.

Well I didn't mean to stir up a shit storm. I figured as much but wondered how anyone knows the company is on the up n up. It would be a immeasurable asset to all of us IF it's legit. But IME most things that are to good to be true unfortunately usually are

 

[flenser]

I may be wrong but wouldn't a pure\verified control sample be needed?

Yes, definitely. Makes me uncertain about the accuracy of the offered tests, since no one is going to send standards to the US, and even if they would the cost would be prohibitive for a university student. Note that the standards are only to calibrate the gc part of the system. Identifying and guessing at the concentration can be done easily with ms alone.

I disagree with the idea the equipment would not be accessible, though. I spent a year as an UNDERgrad with complete access to far more expensive equipment at least 12 hours a day. State institutions routinely mothball perfectly operational equipment for reasons incomprehensible to anyone who lives on a budget.

 

[lightspan]

Lol, no I wouldn't believe anyhting I read there. I had read on another forum a guy at eroids was offering ms testing. The pure sample is pretty much standard in all testing for comparison, least as far as my knowledge says.

No, this is simply wrong. Mass spec uses a reference compound to calibrate the m/z response of the instrument, but that reference compound is not a pure sample of the compound being analyzed. The reference compound (of known molecular weight, easily ionizable with a well known, simple fragmentation pattern) ensures that the instrument is providing an accurate m/z value when a sample is analyzed.

However, if you are only doing GC analysis, a pure reference would be needed so you know the exact retention time for the compound of interest. Retention time to identify compounds is unnecessary when using a GC/MS, as the GC is only used to separate mixtures into discrete peaks before MS, so that the constituents can be identified via their masses individually. Similar idea for LC/MS.

Either GC or LC will give peaks and areas of peaks, such that you can determine the relative amounts of the constituents, and since you get a mass spectrum for each peak, you can back out the percentage of each constituent in the mixture.

You may not be able to identify the rest of the crap in a sample other than hormone, but you know what the hormone mass is (assuming it is there) and can correlate that mass to the peak from the GC or LC chromatogram, and figure out what % of the sample it was.

 

[graniteman]

No, this is simply wrong. Mass spec uses a reference compound to calibrate the m/z response of the instrument, but that reference compound is not a pure sample of the compound being analyzed. The reference compound (of known molecular weight, easily ionizable with a well known, simple fragmentation pattern) ensures that the instrument is providing an accurate m/z value when a sample is analyzed.

However, if you are only doing GC analysis, a pure reference would be needed so you know the exact retention time for the compound of interest. Retention time to identify compounds is unnecessary when using a GC/MS, as the GC is only used to separate mixtures into discrete peaks before MS, so that the constituents can be identified via their masses individually. Similar idea for LC/MS.

Either GC or LC will give peaks and areas of peaks, such that you can determine the relative amounts of the constituents, and since you get a mass spectrum for each peak, you can back out the percentage of each constituent in the mixture.

You may not be able to identify the rest of the crap in a sample other than hormone, but you know what the hormone mass is (assuming it is there) and can correlate that mass to the peak from the GC or LC chromatogram, and figure out what % of the sample it was.

Like I said, I'm no Einstein! lol That's why I wrote pure\verified in the 1st reference. Either way you need a sample or refernce. I would assume you would want a usp pure sample, Good convo though. Def interested how it all turns out


THANKS BRUTUS! Good seeing ya Brother

 

[bickel29]

No, this is simply wrong. Mass spec uses a reference compound to calibrate the m/z response of the instrument, but that reference compound is not a pure sample of the compound being analyzed. The reference compound (of known molecular weight, easily ionizable with a well known, simple fragmentation pattern) ensures that the instrument is providing an accurate m/z value when a sample is analyzed.

However, if you are only doing GC analysis, a pure reference would be needed so you know the exact retention time for the compound of interest. Retention time to identify compounds is unnecessary when using a GC/MS, as the GC is only used to separate mixtures into discrete peaks before MS, so that the constituents can be identified via their masses individually. Similar idea for LC/MS.

Either GC or LC will give peaks and areas of peaks, such that you can determine the relative amounts of the constituents, and since you get a mass spectrum for each peak, you can back out the percentage of each constituent in the mixture.

You may not be able to identify the rest of the crap in a sample other than hormone, but you know what the hormone mass is (assuming it is there) and can correlate that mass to the peak from the GC or LC chromatogram, and figure out what % of the sample it was.

Ya know Lightspan, it is funny you say all of that, because I was just getting ready to type the same thing... well, minus many of the terms you used, and without much of the reasoning you used - oh, and void of 99% of the intelligence you possess on this topic... but other than that, yeah, you and me were right on the same level.

 

[Ozzy619]

Lightspan must be working on a degree. Or you are a Jedi Night with you shit, because you're on a different level all together.

 

[bickel29]

Lightspan must be working on a degree. Or you are a Jedi Night with you shit, because you're on a different level all together.

I vouched for Lightspan previously in one of these threads - I think i called him the man - I probably should have called him THEE man. Lol

In all seriousness, we have some really intelligent fellas here at Meso that help make this place great - a lot of good folks with different backgrounds and a common interest coming together to learn. Now if we could just get the good doc, Dr. Jimmy to come back around the underground.

 

[ironwarrior]

Holy Fuck lightspan, you just blew my mind

 

[noah_k]

Meso, my favorite group of talented, slightly crazy and no doubt perfectly law abiding internet strangers