GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Lab] QSC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.7% against a claimed 98.5% — 13 comments in the full submission. View in context.
-26
c/coa·submitted 4 months ago by u/vito_chowdhury

[Lab] QSC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.7% against a claimed 98.5%

Labbranch of 10 comments

Posting this because the title is the whole finding — QSC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.7% against a claimed 98.5% — and a number without its method is a rumour. 98.7% and 98.5% — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend. Started keeping a folder of every certificate I have been sent. The…

Read the full submission and all 13 comments →

This branch

10 comments, started 4 months ago
u/certified_referenceMOD11 points·4 months ago

Left up and flaired Explainer. This is the answer we keep linking, written properly.

replysharereportpermalink
u/andres_restrepo-22 points·4 months ago

redact your own name, never the batch details

replysharereportpermalink
u/vito_chowdhuryOP1 point·4 months ago

That is the catalogue certificate rather than the batch-specific one. Same layout, completely different status.

replysharereportpermalink
u/laila_yilmaz1 point·4 months ago

Small fix — 214nm, not 280nm. It matters here because the impurity you are asking about barely absorbs at the longer wavelength.

replysharereportpermalink
u/valeria_karlsen6 points·4 months ago

Batch number and date of analysis, are both on there?

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]7 points·4 months ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/neha_erdogan3 points·4 months ago

net peptide content and purity are two different numbers on the same vial

replysharereportpermalink
u/honest_syringe244 points·4 months ago

the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the page

replysharereportpermalink
u/yannick_haddad3 points·4 months ago

That is not what the method line says. It names the technique; it does not certify the operator.

replysharereportpermalink
u/vito_chowdhuryOP5 points·4 months ago

My first certificate had a compound name, a percentage and a logo. I thought that was normal. It is not, and now I know what to ask for.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/coa

How to read a certificate of analysis and what it does and does not tell you. Area% versus mass%, identity versus quantity, water content, related substances, acetate counterions, and the difference between a vendor-supplied COA and an independent test on the vial you actually received.

71kmembers
130submissions
Aug 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
c/coa rules
  1. Post the full document. Cropped COAs that hide the batch number or date get removed.
  2. Redact your own name and order id, not the vendor's batch details.
  3. No "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.