[shaggyballs]

Been busy but thanks beta....old thread but still an issue I was thinkn of!

@ CoCoColaClassic
Thank you for your input.
It is also appreciated the same as beta's info!

Beta is pretty spot on usually, and always helpful, a bit brutally honest at times but he is a great guy over all, with tons and tons of good info backed by real life studies much like you seem to be also.

Thanks again to both of you!
I will be around more soon I hope.
Till then my friends.

Shag

[CoCoColaClassic]

Hey beta, just checked, you're right (my bad)...and I actualy appreciate it bc some products get are dense enough i'd be way off! And particularly on the MW of the speciese this would have meant way more moles (or molecules) per volume. Luckily here the mw of hormones is SO HIGH when we got to micromoles it would have been negligible.

Shaggy, no wirries about beta, he's honest w/o being jbrutal...and thorough and i actualy really appreciate/needed this correction. I'm still not sure were i got it locked in my head things were w/v.

[CoCoColaClassic]

I'm running thenumbers and when you calc to mirco molar beta and my diff wod have yieled 0.51 uM vs 0.45 uM and that just nit appreciable, beta. No micro propagation study would test that small of a range. You'd see .5, 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 uM ..hmm

[CoCoColaClassic]

I agree with you if i was making a product and even then only for regulatory compliance and i'd be using "to deliver" ( aka TD) pipettes and grad cyliners, but I think I came to my conclusion of just multiplied by 10,000 and using basic dilution factor because it's convenient and works and the numbers you're speaking of Adding to the calc are negligible unless you're working the dry compound with the product if interest.

Going through these calculations is i think why i came to the conclusions that treating our products as % x 10,000 = mg/L

[CoCoColaClassic]

Erase my message because predictive text was sucking my hands are full right now. Great topic appreciate you both, shaggy and beta.