water content is on the COA and everyone skips it
Right, the certificate of analysis question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 12 data points over 36 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 78, not week 32. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with water content, not with what you concluded.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Water content was 3.8%, acetate was 6.2%, purity was 99%, but net peptide was only 90% of the label weight. Perfectly honest, just chemistry.
The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash. Turns out the method was solid and the impurity profile was clean.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with related substances, not with what you concluded.
- 1Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone…11 comments in this branch · started by u/liv_nkemelu