AlexDavis43
Member
Jano said only TNE in oil, not Tren in oil, degrades in GCMS? Weird.
Does this TNE in MIG840 have an HPLC report? Cuz otherwise, bc there are no obvious degradation products, it just looks way underdosed.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
MESO "Specialized" Testing Group Fund
- Thread starter readalot
- Start date
Jano said only TNE in oil, not Tren in oil, degrades in GCMS? Weird.
Does this TNE in MIG840 have an HPLC report? Cuz otherwise, bc there are no obvious degradation products, it just looks way underdosed.
dinfar1337
New Member
thats the whole point
the oil matrix is skewing the gcms report making it look unreliable.
im saying dont do gcms in oils but its best to do in raws for ids on a single component.
whether the hplc on that tne turned out good or bad we cant tell from the gcms. unless it turned up 100% rat oil
Photon
Member
No Jano replied in his other thread that it may be degradation in GCMS for TNE. He nvr said anything about Tren.
47mg
dinfar1337
New Member
oh you meant the 3% area is a degradation product of testosterone but it might have been picked up as testosterone instead?
some smaller products from already 3% only testosterone might have been autoid as test but idk honestly. cant tell with oil in the gcms
Photon
Member
I was kind of referring to the 86 gcms vs 98 hplc difference.
Photon
Member
dinfar1337
New Member
cant compare that to the tne gcms you sent.
Oh ok good because I thought I fucked up and I had already the GCMS of the test C I shipped to Jano lol
Photon
Member
Yes that's not what i was doing.
Jano's reply is that the degradation turning up between 86 v 98 MAY have been due to GCMS process (high heat).
I showed an example of TNE in oil, whereby we see no degradation. (Different raws)
WHICH leads me to believe the GCMS process is unlikely to cause degradation to the TNE in 86v98.
86(gcms)
98(hplc)
dinfar1337
New Member
i completely agree. i think you're misunderstanding jano or he is contradicting himself
refer to his post from the quote here. he himself stated 0.3% max acceptable limit. around same numbers as we do this time around drawing exact same conclusion as him, unacceptable.
gcms should have higher accucary in raws.
dinfar1337
New Member
delta 6 testosterone:
testosterone:
peaks are close to each other but not different. no new large peaks happeend under gcms
almost no change in RT > gcms didnt isomerize the testosterone. the gcms is most likely accurate for testosterone and delta 6. no need to use 500 bucks
testosterone:
peaks are close to each other but not different. no new large peaks happeend under gcms
almost no change in RT > gcms didnt isomerize the testosterone. the gcms is most likely accurate for testosterone and delta 6. no need to use 500 bucks
AlexDavis43
Member
i completely agree. i think you're misunderstanding jano or he is contradicting himself
refer to his post from the quote here. he himself stated 0.3% max acceptable limit. around same numbers as we do this time around drawing exact same conclusion as him, unacceptable.
gcms should have higher accucary in raws.
This conversation seems to be coming from the other thread where GCMS (area%) was shown to correlate with HPLC data, right?
And the purpose of GCMS is compound identification, not quantification, so we're right back where we started (that is, you can't accurately extrapolate mg/mL from GCMS data) ?
Photon
Member
So far we were able to, but only for MCT compounds.
Obviously sample size is too small to say for certain for now.
dinfar1337
New Member
no. that is from janoshiks thread about delta6 testosterone as possible culprit of test e raws causing pip, which isnt true.
photons thread something complete else.
i dont think he has calibrated it to mig840 on gcms to correlate with hplc yet
Photon
Member
yea we only have n=1 so not possible lol
dinfar1337
New Member
you can, but its alot of work as photon has showed. good luck with it! dont know if its possible with every oil aswell
canIgetsomeHgG
New Member
Janoshik is saying is that there are 2 main possibilities. One is that the temperature used during GCMS oxidized the 6 position carbon (a spot that is quite sensitive) of ~10% of the testosterone, causing a delta 4,6. See AASraw thread for specifics of this molecule. The other option is that while manufacturing, 10% already existed and that hplc failed to notice the minute difference (litteraly 1 H apart).
As a chemist, I would say that the latter is much more likely. First, I'd expect that the spectra of the 2 molecules to be very similar and might coelute on hplc -> meaning that it's basically impossible to distinguish on most hplc machines. On the other hand, the chance of oxidation at that one specific position, due to heat, is unlikely. Usually, you would expect polymerization or many different compounds when thermally oxidizing. A catalyst could make this more likely, but many such catalysts are either basics/acids or platinum group metals, which is unlikely to be in the hplc machine.
If you want to verify this, have @janoshik retest. Specifically, take the exact sample and heat it to 250C or whatever temp his gcms machine is. Leave it for an hour or so, and retest. If the amount of this specific analog increases, then it is likely your culprit. If nothing happens or other components increase, then it was likely an impurity - likely from over-oxidation while forming the double bond. Not sure how much this'd cost but that is an option.
As a chemist, I would say that the latter is much more likely. First, I'd expect that the spectra of the 2 molecules to be very similar and might coelute on hplc -> meaning that it's basically impossible to distinguish on most hplc machines. On the other hand, the chance of oxidation at that one specific position, due to heat, is unlikely. Usually, you would expect polymerization or many different compounds when thermally oxidizing. A catalyst could make this more likely, but many such catalysts are either basics/acids or platinum group metals, which is unlikely to be in the hplc machine.
If you want to verify this, have @janoshik retest. Specifically, take the exact sample and heat it to 250C or whatever temp his gcms machine is. Leave it for an hour or so, and retest. If the amount of this specific analog increases, then it is likely your culprit. If nothing happens or other components increase, then it was likely an impurity - likely from over-oxidation while forming the double bond. Not sure how much this'd cost but that is an option.
Last edited:
Photon
Member
I'm also leaning towards the later being true but we can probably verify from the results of other gcms of test raws who have much lower melting points.
The testing you mentioned is probably 120x3 usd
Hplc
Gcms
Hplc
canIgetsomeHgG
New Member
That also works, but I was thinking just put the sample in a hot plate or oil bath at the same temp as the machine, for longer. Then GC/MS again and see if it converts into delta4,6. The former would show that hplc cannot differentiate the 2. The latter would show whether this d4,6 is a thermal degredation product. Also, it is possible that both happen - it degrades into d4,6 AND hplc can't differentiate.
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
-
Wuhan Wansheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (USA, International)
- Latest: Ruru_Teh_seks