Photon
Member
Because one good GCMS hit can still fool you. Even with a clean library match, reference standard, and nice ions, you’re still relying on one separation and one ionization in a complex matrix. Coelution, in-source fragments, near-isomers, or matrix additives can mimic the target. An orthogonal check changes the rules of the game to see if the ID survives. Run the reference and sample on a different column and confirm identical retention and RI, verify exact mass and fragments with HRMS/MS, and for polymer additives add FTIR on an extract. If it’s suspected as a leachable, extract the closure or filter and see if the same signal appears. If the call holds across those moves, you’ve got a robust identification rather than a good-looking coincidence.
There's no end to this.
Tldr good reports are gtg.
Bad reports are invalid. Nobody's going to spend a f load of money, break opsec just to prove it.
Sent samples but no results? Jano did not run it.
3rd party results off? Jano variance.
Adrol tested wrong? Jano API degradation.
Weird stuff in GCMS? Jano's testing isn't sufficient, we need to do "insert alot of tests" and spend alot more money to validate.
I probably shouldn't even bother posting in this thread at this point..


