Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic

I don’t understand your request here, nor the interest.
You’re looking for funding something that has nothing to do with Q samples or have an interest back for my sales, right?

Thanks for running the test and sharing the results. Would be great to drill down on the -ene question in the raw so results aren't diluted by other stuff in the finished product. That's why I am organizing a group buy for an -ene standard so we can run at various ratios with API to determine if the -ene peak is properly resolved from the API peak for Test C and Test E. If it isn't them there are some Test raws on the market that are quite impure. That's what the GCMS testing I had done with a vendor suggests.
 
Test Decanoate finished oils results.

An extra GCMS Enhanced testing was added due to suspicions on the quality of raws, tested 90.16% by Deadbeef:

The finished oil was brewed earlier, before his test, assuming the purity is 99%.

The HPLC finished results ended up accurately dosed.

Test Report #55364.webp

GCMS testing shows no contamination.

The lines 2 and 3 are to be ignore, because it's from Janoshik previous GCMS test of another sample.
17.beta.-Acetoxyandrosta-4,6-dien-3-one is a common impurity found in testosterone raws and other steroids.

The following molecules are MCT constituents:
Glycerol tricaprylate.
2-(Decanoyloxy)propane-1,3-diyl dioctanoate.
3-(Octanoyloxy)propane-1,2-diyl bis(decanoate).
Decanoic acid, 1,2,3-propanetriyl ester.

1736257584604.webp
1736257608935.webp
1736257623900.webp
1736257634985.webp
 
Test Decanoate finished oils results.

An extra GCMS Enhanced testing was added due to suspicions on the quality of raws, tested 90.16% by Deadbeef:

The finished oil was brewed earlier, before his test, assuming the purity is 99%.

The HPLC finished results ended up accurately dosed.

View attachment 310984

GCMS testing shows no contamination.

The lines 2 and 3 are to be ignore, because it's from Janoshik previous GCMS test of another sample.
17.beta.-Acetoxyandrosta-4,6-dien-3-one is a common impurity found in testosterone raws and other steroids.

The following molecules are MCT constituents:
Glycerol tricaprylate.
2-(Decanoyloxy)propane-1,3-diyl dioctanoate.
3-(Octanoyloxy)propane-1,2-diyl bis(decanoate).
Decanoic acid, 1,2,3-propanetriyl ester.

View attachment 310989
View attachment 310990
View attachment 310991
View attachment 310992
To confirm, that's GCMS of finished oil. Well done. Testing the raws with GCMS even more useful (no dilution with other stuff you add to make finished product).

Very useful tool. Now we need to put the question on Test C and Test E raws to bed. That's where the reference standard for -ene impurity becomes critical. Will allow determination if that impurity is "invisible" to HPLC (vs API).
 
Test Decanoate finished oils results.

An extra GCMS Enhanced testing was added due to suspicions on the quality of raws, tested 90.16% by Deadbeef:

The finished oil was brewed earlier, before his test, assuming the purity is 99%.

The HPLC finished results ended up accurately dosed.

View attachment 310984

GCMS testing shows no contamination.

The lines 2 and 3 are to be ignore, because it's from Janoshik previous GCMS test of another sample.
17.beta.-Acetoxyandrosta-4,6-dien-3-one is a common impurity found in testosterone raws and other steroids.

The following molecules are MCT constituents:
Glycerol tricaprylate.
2-(Decanoyloxy)propane-1,3-diyl dioctanoate.
3-(Octanoyloxy)propane-1,2-diyl bis(decanoate).
Decanoic acid, 1,2,3-propanetriyl ester.

View attachment 310989
View attachment 310990
View attachment 310991
View attachment 310992
I used to leave cash in someone’s bag in the gym and he’d drop the gear In my bag in the changing room, now we get whatever the fuck these graphs are with our order …. As bob Dylan wrote, the times they are a changing
 
To confirm, that's GCMS of finished oil. Well done. Testing the raws with GCMS even more useful (no dilution with other stuff you add to make finished product).

Very useful tool. Now we need to put the question on Test C and Test E raws to bed. That's where the reference standard for -ene impurity becomes critical. Will allow determination if that impurity is "invisible" to HPLC (vs API).
Good luck with that.
QSC will always continue to perform whatever testing is need to advertise its products, and whenever there is an interest that brings a return of investment.
I am sure when the interest in your question one day raises, you'll see more participants in the subject.
 
Test Decanoate finished oils results.

An extra GCMS Enhanced testing was added due to suspicions on the quality of raws, tested 90.16% by Deadbeef:

The finished oil was brewed earlier, before his test, assuming the purity is 99%.

The HPLC finished results ended up accurately dosed.

View attachment 310984

GCMS testing shows no contamination.

The lines 2 and 3 are to be ignore, because it's from Janoshik previous GCMS test of another sample.
17.beta.-Acetoxyandrosta-4,6-dien-3-one is a common impurity found in testosterone raws and other steroids.

The following molecules are MCT constituents:
Glycerol tricaprylate.
2-(Decanoyloxy)propane-1,3-diyl dioctanoate.
3-(Octanoyloxy)propane-1,2-diyl bis(decanoate).
Decanoic acid, 1,2,3-propanetriyl ester.

View attachment 310989
View attachment 310990
View attachment 310991
View attachment 310992
I don't understand.

Either

- the HPLC test of the raws (90% purity) is correct

Or

- The GCMS test of the oil (no impurities corresponding to the 10% of the weight of the raws detected) is correct

I do not see how both tests could be correct. Unless the impurity detected in the HPLC somehow disappeared in the brewing process (like water evaporating).

Help a brotha out here
 
I don't understand.

Either

- the HPLC test of the raws (90% purity) is correct

Or

- The GCMS test of the oil (no impurities corresponding to the 10% of the weight of the raws detected) is correct

I do not see how both tests could be correct. Unless the impurity detected in the HPLC somehow disappeared in the brewing process (like water evaporating).

Help a brotha out here
Finally getting some interest in this important topic. I will be reading with keen enjoyment. Thanks for asking the questions.

Lots of degrees of freedom in there to nail the answers down.
 
I don't understand.

Either

- the HPLC test of the raws (90% purity) is correct

Or

- The GCMS test of the oil (no impurities corresponding to the 10% of the weight of the raws detected) is correct

I do not see how both tests could be correct. Unless the impurity detected in the HPLC somehow disappeared in the brewing process (like water evaporating).

Help a brotha out here
We performed both HPLC and GCMS testing on the Test D oil here.

No impurity was reflected on the oil sample, despite using the same batch for making oils.

The only explanations possible:
- test D finished oil is overdosed.
- the test D raw sample was not correctly handled by the buyer, which resulted in the lower purity results.

Only an extra test D raw testing from someone else who purchased the test D raws can confirm, and ideally if he includes the GCMS test.
 
I don't understand.

Either

- the HPLC test of the raws (90% purity) is correct

Or

- The GCMS test of the oil (no impurities corresponding to the 10% of the weight of the raws detected) is correct

I do not see how both tests could be correct. Unless the impurity detected in the HPLC somehow disappeared in the brewing process (like water evaporating).

Help a brotha out here
I was thinking the same, if the brew was done with 99% purity in mind the oil should come underdosed by at least 9/10%
 
We performed both HPLC and GCMS testing on the Test D oil here.

No impurity was reflected on the oil sample, despite using the same batch for making oils.

The only explanations possible:
- test D finished oil is overdosed.
- the test D raw sample was not correctly handled by the buyer, which resulted in the lower purity results.

Only an extra test D raw testing from someone else who purchased the test D raws can confirm, and ideally if he includes the GCMS test.

I'll have to be that guy, would you like to help me out Tracy? Not saying you should fund the whole test (even so it would be appreciated) but a contribution would be appreciated :)
 
I'll have to be that guy, would you like to help me out Tracy? Not saying you should fund the whole test (even so it would be appreciated) but a contribution would be appreciated :)
Sure and ideally send it in optimum conditions to eliminate any possible contamination/impurity scenario from air and humidity.
Mylar bag + silica packet
Like Rido testing on oxy, I can contribute to a part of it:
 
Sure and ideally send it in optimum conditions to eliminate any possible contamination/impurity scenario from air and humidity.
Mylar bag + silica packet
Like Rido testing on oxy, I can contribute to a part of it:
The sample is inside a small sealed plastic vial kept in a dark dry place at the moment. Would you find it acceptable? That's usually how I send all my raw sample.
 
Back
Top