One concrete data point for the thread. The four things to check on any report, in order: does it name your batch, who commissioned it, what method was used, and does it report content as well as purity. A report failing any of those is weak evidence regardless of the percentage on it.
Following on from PharmacoVig_BOS — and this may be the naive question:
How people are distinguishing a supplier having a bad batch from a supplier on the way out?
wendy_avl said:The four things to check on any report, in order: does it name your batch, who commissioned it, what method was used, and does it report content as…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself calibrated, the gradient and column, the detection wavelength, and where the integration baseline was drawn. A percentage point or two between competent labs is expected. What is not expected is a large gap, and the usual explanation there is that one report is not of the batch in your hand.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClosing the loop on my own question.
Went back through my own correspondence with an earlier supplier and the warning signs were all there in the replies, weeks before the quality changed. I was reading the product and not the behaviour.
Dr.LipidDallas said:Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…
Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency. Consistency means separate batches, separately commissioned, over months.