JenPlateau said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
One thing that is still open after BethLabQueen’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPeptideChemSF said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.