PurplePandaLabs Raw source

92% is pretty good for Bold U, its usually around that purity, some solvents are leftover, some ester without active Pharmaceutical is left over, overall this is an okayish to good raw. I would consider a recrystallisation, to really get the quality to where you want it to be (95-98%).
For more info about recrystallisation/purification of raws, look at a few of @TheScholarOfBrew s threads, really useful stuff.
Its good enough actually its acceptable however if its got that solvent as stated above my reply then that's hella dangerous. However 92% should be safe.. Not sure what to make of the report. I'll wait for jano to say something. Actually he already left a reply. Nvm hahah
 
Correct. Good call.

It's bold u with main impurity being unbound ester. (#1 and #2)

#2 being much smaller than #1 means nothing, btw, as peak % area is not only function of content, but also volatility (and others) and #1 (which is most likely made in situ due to methanol used in the analysis) is much more volatile than #2. And given the above, #1 and #2 are both most likely the same thing. (and #3 too)

Cheers
So in other words 92% BU with about an additional 5% unbound ester. Honestly, it probably better than the majority of BU that's been coming in.
 
Yes but I'm quite sure that on the HPLC It would be lower.

@janoshik should confirm this
Yeah, in looking into it a bit I guess GCMS is more qualitative analysis whereas HPLC is quantitative analysis.

ADDED: I just figured the area percentage would approximate the purity of the overall compound, but I guess that is not necessarily the case.
 
Last edited:
Yes but I'm quite sure that on the HPLC It would be lower.

@janoshik should confirm this
I'll admit this is more mental masturbation for me at this point, so if I make mistakes, I hope someone will correct me kindly.

Digging into the GCMS vs HPLC testing, the GCMS detects compounds the HPLC would not necessarily "see" and so the surface area of non-target compounds would be larger using GCMS than HPLC.

Then consider the UV-absorption of the compounds. Bold U has strong UV-absorbing features from what I read which means it would show up very clearly in an HPLC test. The other compounds found in the GCMS test have lower UV-absorption which means they should show up less clearly on HPLC. If this is true - and I readily admit I may have misunderstood something - then it would seem the purity of the Bold U should be higher than its area percentage found under GCMS. The end result being that the HPLC purity should be marginally higher than the area percentage found in GCMS.

I find this fascinating and while I hope I am understanding it all I would not be at all disappointed if those more knowledgeable correct me.
 
I ordered 3 times this year from PPL once QSC disappeared and everything was fine.. just raws and couple of finished oils like primo and tren e
I ordered quite a bit of the raw boldenone, And I'm glad I did obviously it's a good product, The raw tren e I got was great as well, their prices are high but they seem to be somewhat decent, And I've been happy with their customer service, I had some issues with them and they worked them out with me and fixed all the problems I had, They even resent a package of mine that was destroyed or ripped apart during shipping, I really can't complain about them at all they've been good with me
 
I ordered quite a bit of the raw boldenone, And I'm glad I did obviously it's a good product, The raw tren e I got was great as well, their prices are high but they seem to be somewhat decent, And I've been happy with their customer service, I had some issues with them and they worked them out with me and fixed all the problems I had, They even resent a package of mine that was destroyed or ripped apart during shipping, I really can't complain about them at all they've been good with me
Same here
 
Looks like the EQ raws are contaminated with Test C..
Weird raws..it even has Methanol and Arachidonic acid in it..

@Sampei
That methanol is dangerous and should be removed. Why the fuck did they leave that in? Sounds like someone didn't vaccume dry before sending it off.... Sigh.
You can't interpret GCMS like that.

The fact the auto-ID calls something testosterone cypionate at trace levels doesn't mean it's testesterone cypionate, it might just be the nearest hit in the database and instead it's boldenone that got a bit sideways fucked.

The methanol part has a quite significant bit after it - it's just a partial name of the compound (and also see the above).
 
Yes but I'm quite sure that on the HPLC It would be lower.

@janoshik should confirm this

Yeah, in looking into it a bit I guess GCMS is more qualitative analysis whereas HPLC is quantitative analysis.

ADDED: I just figured the area percentage would approximate the purity of the overall compound, but I guess that is not necessarily the case.
Depends on how you run it. You can absolutely run GCMS quantiatively, but area % should never be assumed to be purity unless in specific defined scenarios in ANY mode of analysis, HPLC, GCMS or anything.

I'll admit this is more mental masturbation for me at this point, so if I make mistakes, I hope someone will correct me kindly.

Digging into the GCMS vs HPLC testing, the GCMS detects compounds the HPLC would not necessarily "see" and so the surface area of non-target compounds would be larger using GCMS than HPLC.

Then consider the UV-absorption of the compounds. Bold U has strong UV-absorbing features from what I read which means it would show up very clearly in an HPLC test. The other compounds found in the GCMS test have lower UV-absorption which means they should show up less clearly on HPLC. If this is true - and I readily admit I may have misunderstood something - then it would seem the purity of the Bold U should be higher than its area percentage found under GCMS. The end result being that the HPLC purity should be marginally higher than the area percentage found in GCMS.

I find this fascinating and while I hope I am understanding it all I would not be at all disappointed if those more knowledgeable correct me.
GCMS might see compounds HPLC can't and vice versa, but again area % should never be assumed to be purity unless in specific defined scenarios in ANY mode of analysis, HPLC, GCMS or anything.

You measure purity by detected amount/weighted amount.
 
I personally would not like this and be angry and attempt recrystallization it and obtain a higher purity

If you want me to do this for you contact me. I can do a pass over it and get you to 96% pure or higher. I'll do it for free

All due respect, I don't think you're going to have a good time recrystallizing a compund that's not a crystal at room temperature without proper experience and equipment.
 
All due respect, I don't think you're going to have a good time recrystallizing a compund that's not a crystal at room temperature without proper experience and equipment.
That's an interesting thing I never thought of.. It is a damn oil... I wonder how that would be done .. would you bring it back as an oil or would you have to do it at a lower temperature.. have to chil it in a freezer or something...
 
That's an interesting thing I never thought of.. It is a damn oil... I wonder how that would be done .. would you bring it back as an oil or would you have to do it at a lower temperature.. have to chil it in a freezer or something...
My suspicion is it would have to be cold.

Very, very cold.

which then also lowers the amount of solvents that would even work.

The process of recrystallization is on the premise of heating the solvent to increase its solubility.

But when you do things cold......... Like it's very tricky.... Because that decreases solubility.....
 
I was just thinking you would chill it to crystallize it, you wouldn't have to have it cold to dissolve it, It just wouldn't crystallize right until you got the temperature low enough.... At least that's what I was thinking
 
My suspicion is it would have to be cold.

Very, very cold.

which then also lowers the amount of solvents that would even work.

The process of recrystallization is on the premise of heating the solvent to increase its solubility.

But when you do things cold......... Like it's very tricky.... Because that decreases olubility.....
I read that undecylenic acid is liquid at room temperature because of its structure.. like unsaturated fats.. saturation is referred to the number of bonds the carbon could make with hydrogens... 3 bonds with hydrogen and one to another carbon, or 2 with hydrogen and 2 with left and right carbons on a chain... so unsaturated is when the carbon makes a double bond, and the double bond are diagonal.. so the zig zag chain couldn't pack but one chain slides over the others and so on, at room temperature pretty much
 
I was just thinking you would chill it to crystallize it, you wouldn't have to have it cold to dissolve it, It just wouldn't crystallize right until you got the temperature low enough.... At least that's what I was thinking
Yeah, I read a paper on this subject. I will attempt some experiments on some liquid raws on my own. My lab equipment is growing in extensiveness, so I can't wait to keep chucking money at this.
 
I know it shits expensive, I just picked up a nice glass fine frit, Buckner funnel, with 24/40 joints and a vacuum flask to go with it shit was almost 100 bucks, I still don't have a vacuum pump I have a lot of glassware for other s*** like distilling and stuff but I never really did much stuff that utilized a vacuum, I still haven't decided what kind of pump I want
 
I know it shits expensive, I just picked up a nice glass fine frit, Buckner funnel, with 24/40 joints and a vacuum flask to go with it shit was almost 100 bucks, I still don't have a vacuum pump I have a lot of glassware for other s*** like distilling and stuff but I never really didn't much stuff that utilized a vacuum, I still haven't decided what kind of pump I want
Just get a hand pump.

Go to an auto store or some store like Harbor Freight.

Grab one of those hand pumps that you have to squeeze over and over. It works very well.

When you're filtering out The mother liquid., it's a very quick process, so it's not like when you're filtering out oil.
 

Sponsors

Back
Top