Testing 10 HGH vials of 1 batch to showcase variance

[Liska]

Preface: This series of tests can't answer if a batch of lyophilized HGH powder has varying purity or if the variance is exclusively a result of the testing method, that's for another day. Let's leave discussion of old vs new method aside as well until we've made progress on the previous question.

What this will show is the purity results from ten vials pulled randomly from amongst 100 kits of the same batch I received uncooled after 14 days of transport, stored all together in a fridge, sent to Janoshik as two vials at a first date (the optimal amount asked for when submitting HGH & peptides for testing, though only one was tested while the other was stored) and eight vials at a later date.

Here's a quick list of the purity percentages of all vials taken from the attached individual raw data in order of filename:
1. 92.887%
2. 93.439%
3. 94.687%
4. 93.243%
5. 93.890%
6. 93.527%
7. 94.175%
8. 93.147%
9. 94.531%
10. 94.981%

Here's my intial test report for reference:


I've attached a PDF file of all ten graphs overlayed to show both the similarity in peaks & troughs identifying them as belonging to the same batch while making the variances visible at a quick glance as well. The .zip file contains the raw data for all ten individual tests for those wanting a detailed look at each. For what it's worth, I've attached a picture of my best try at 8 random vial pulls.

Comment for correct interpretation:

"First 6 samples [by time tested] (original + the vial that was sent along the original + 4 of the ones shipped later) were done by my assistant, last 4 were done entirely by me.

One thing I might want to address before you ask:
The differences between retention time on different days of testing are caused by trifluoroacetic acid content variation in the mobile phase of the LC. The method is set up on margins so tight to get the most resolution, that difference in micrograms of TFA push the peak left and right a lot and I do prepare new mobile phase with each testing.

Does the peak moving left and right on different days matter? Nope - see raw data comparison, once the retention time is adjusted the difference in resolution (peak shapes and distance between main peak and impurities) is the same.

I'll keep my thoughts to myself for now to not influence the discussion right away. I'd respectfully ask everyone participating to put a bit of effort into their posts, as if this goes well, I plan to conduct testing projects on a bigger scale to hopefully resolve longstanding community questions.

Děkuji vám to @janoshik for committing to all the actual (and annoying) work as always, since my part was ultimately just putting vials from small boxes into a bigger oner and sending them off. Further thanks to canadian Deus Pharmaceuticals and @GoodLyfe for being open source!

 

[theotherguy]

I have nothing significant to tribute, but this is some interesting data for sure. Thanks for that

 

[Ambitionzcs]

Could it be janos margin of error? Certainly in range for it.

 

[Colonial Labs]

Thank you for doing this! Good information IMO. The test results fall in range of most generics. I personally believe this variance of purity could exist within kits. We don't know how well maintained the process of production that goes into these generics is.

Curious to see 10 vials of a pharma-grade kit tested.

 

[Liska]

Curious to see 10 vials of a pharma-grade kit tested.

@SkankHunt might be up for collaborating on this at a later date, though pulling them from 10 random kits could complicate the setup.

 

[theotherguy]

Could it be janos margin of error? Certainly in range for it.

The most interesting bit of info to me is that the purity trends up as the number of samples increases. Idk if they were all done in succession, but it is certainly interesting to note

 

[Liska]

The most interesting bit of info to me is that the purity trends up as the number of samples increases. Idk if they were all done in succession, but it is certainly interesting to note

No, I posted that they were simply ordered by file name, you can see the testing dates on the tests - my initial lab report being at #5 in the list would hint at this as well.

 

[Forthewin1123]

Could it be janos margin of error? Certainly in range for it.

I second this theory.. this seems the simplest answer.. would be interesting to see the same vial tested 10 times..

 

[theotherguy]

No, I posted that they were simply ordered by file name, you can see the testing dates on the tests - my initial lab report being at #5 in the list would hint at this as well.

Ah, yea I missed that

 

[Pounds23]

Preface: This series of tests can't answer if a batch of lyophilized HGH powder has varying purity or if the variance is exclusively a result of the testing method, that's for another day. Let's leave discussion of old vs new method aside as well until we've made progress on the previous question.

What this will show is the purity results from ten vials pulled randomly from amongst 100 kits of the same batch I received uncooled after 14 days of transport, stored all together in a fridge, sent to Janoshik as two vials at a first date (the optimal amount asked for when submitting HGH & peptides for testing, though only one was tested while the other was stored) and eight vials at a later date.

Here's a quick list of the purity percentages of all vials taken from the attached individual raw data in order of filename:
1. 92.887%
2. 93.439%
3. 94.687%
4. 93.243%
5. 93.890%
6. 93.527%
7. 94.175%
8. 93.147%
9. 94.531%
10. 94.981%

Here's my intial test report for reference:
View attachment 156038

I've attached a PDF file of all ten graphs overlayed to show both the similarity in peaks & troughs identifying them as belonging to the same batch while making the variances visible at a quick glance as well. The .zip file contains the raw data for all ten individual tests for those wanting a detailed look at each. For what it's worth, I've attached a picture of my best try at 8 random vial pulls.

Comment for correct interpretation:


I'll keep my thoughts to myself for now to not influence the discussion right away. I'd respectfully ask everyone participating to put a bit of effort into their posts, as if this goes well, I plan to conduct testing projects on a bigger scale to hopefully resolve longstanding community questions.

Děkuji vám to @janoshik for committing to all the actual (and annoying) work as always, since my part was ultimately just putting vials from small boxes into a bigger oner and sending them off. Further thanks to canadian Deus Pharmaceuticals and @GoodLyfe for being open source!

Just wanted to see thanks for going out of ur way liska and doing this for the community and I already know this shit was not cheap to do that I'm sure of. Thankfully we have guys like u and skanhunt and other members also who can do this for the whole of the community and that u share the results... Tons of knowledge can be taken from this and show there can be slight variance.... I just appreciate the time , money, effort u put into this for the good of the community.... I'm hoping cashton can get the u.s testing setup I'd love to make a donation to kinda get things moving.... But thanks liska gh testing ain't cheap and u pay per sample so I already know this shit wasn't cheap to do.... Hella amount of respect

 

[M@NU]

yes Liska,
very much appreciated.
@janoshik
can you give more information about your whole process of preparation etc?
(without giving out any inside information of course)
You probably dilute those samples for the test, correct?
if yes, could the dilusion agent or the amount of it give this variations?
2,1% variation is not the world, but to be honest, i think for most of us meso user while looking at probably 25+ hgh tests with the new method of yours, we had some ranges where we said "this is high quality gh, this is more low quality et..
for me, this always was something like
below 90% - fire, destroy it with a huge fire
90 - 92% - lower quality
92-94% - ok-good quality
94++ (i think highest ive seen is @SkankHunt Jins which was around 98 ..)

this whole, tight range system doesnt work as well as we can see..
Ill take a closer look at those graphs later, have to go to the gym early today.

 

[janoshik]

yes Liska,
very much appreciated.
@janoshik
can you give more information about your whole process of preparation etc?
(without giving out any inside information of course)
You probably dilute those samples for the test, correct?
if yes, could the dilusion agent or the amount of it give this variations?
2,1% variation is not the world, but to be honest, i think for most of us meso user while looking at probably 25+ hgh tests with the new method of yours, we had some ranges where we said "this is high quality gh, this is more low quality et..
for me, this always was something like
below 90% - fire, destroy it with a huge fire
90 - 92% - lower quality
92-94% - ok-good quality
94++ (i think highest ive seen is @SkankHunt Jins which was around 98 ..)

this whole, tight range system doesnt work as well as we can see..
Ill take a closer look at those graphs later, have to go to the gym early today.

We dilute the samples and shoot it up the LC.
It's most likely that integration causes those differences along with differences in the separate vials themselves.

Of course, we'd get the most accurate idea by testing all the GH vials in a batch, but then, we have to manage expectations of a reasonable cost. Not every source is a playboy billionaire testing fan like Liska is.

And it's still nowhere near 25% variance, whereas...

 

[Jamzbeast]

yes Liska,
very much appreciated.
@janoshik
can you give more information about your whole process of preparation etc?
(without giving out any inside information of course)
You probably dilute those samples for the test, correct?
if yes, could the dilusion agent or the amount of it give this variations?
2,1% variation is not the world, but to be honest, i think for most of us meso user while looking at probably 25+ hgh tests with the new method of yours, we had some ranges where we said "this is high quality gh, this is more low quality et..
for me, this always was something like
below 90% - fire, destroy it with a huge fire
90 - 92% - lower quality
92-94% - ok-good quality
94++ (i think highest ive seen is @SkankHunt Jins which was around 98 ..)

this whole, tight range system doesnt work as well as we can see..
Ill take a closer look at those graphs later, have to go to the gym early today.

 

[Frozen]

Thank you for a good contribution Liska, jano and even skank!

 

[Liska]

Thank you for a good contribution Liska, jano and even skank!

While I was only allowed to add two extra vials this time as Janoshik is drowning in pussy work, I just repeated this for a new batch from the same factory - this one was freshly made after the chinese new year holiday and the transport time between China > Cat Café > Janoshik was shorter as well, which may or may not be a reason for the slightly higher purity.

 

[Liska]

A notable reduction in variance between the samples for reasons yet unknown to me. Big black thanks to @janoshik for enabling my OCD as always!

 

[kkww]

Well done.