🗃 Poll: Interest of having a commercial directory here in the community?

Interest of having a commercial directory of products and services for all-things Nitrosamines?
  • Yes, everything out there (CRO, Consultants, suppliers, etc)?
  • Yes, but limited (explained below what to consider)
  • No, we do not want promotion of commercial services
0 voters
1 Like

@trust_user_a @trust_user_b @trust_user_c We need your help answering one poll question in the community! Thanks in advance for your time…

I would say no!
This is a sceintific forum. Considering the international nature of its members, it is not beneficial to share this kind of information here.
Thank you


I have voted for ‘Yes, but limited’. Nitrosamine Exchange is a knowledge based community started for ‘Nitrosamine’ related doubts/discussions/issues. It should be seen that, the knowledge shared /discussed should not be commercialized and should be free and open to all. Till date Nitrosamines Exchange portal has helped us a lot in resolving many issues/doubts by openly discussing the problems related to Nitrosamines particularly for NDSRIs.


I guess that for instance, in case data such nitrites level in several excipients would be freely available, that would be beneficial for all. Apologies if I dont get the point exactly of the poll…

1 Like

I answered yes, but limited.
True, this is a scientific forum. However, having also worked in a CRO, I can say that it is always science that is the common passion. Even when it leads us to earn our salary.
Reliable sources of reference material / methods are a resource for those who have to apply science, as the shared knowledge is. Reliability should be the discriminator to include a commercial supplier in a dedicated directory. Also, I’m aware this is not an easy task to put it into practice as a limitation.
Having said that, I find it useful to have a commercial directory within a confined area of the forum, with strict rules to prevent unsound practices like spamming, false claiming etc.

1 Like

I voted “Yes - but with constraints”.

I can see benefits of restricted access, for example for the advertising of new technologies in terms of instruments or analytical methodologies from suppliers (this already happens, and has led to some good discussions on techniques for nitrosamines and nitrites determination).

Would I personally want there to be numerous posts about new grades of raw materials from suppliers? I don’t think so, it could lead in directions that wouldn’t be advantageous to the community. Several of us already keep our eyes out for these sort of things, and I do post where I think appropriate.

The difficulty comes in gatekeeping what (and who) is or isn’t allowed to join or post. The USP will have to maintain their neutrality, and not favour individual suppliers of materials or services, and therefore it becomes an all or nothing scenario.

Seems like I have now convinced myself that it should be a “No” vote.


I acknowledge that references to brands and companies are inevitable within the context of our discussions, especially when referring to articles. However, I would like to advocate for a commitment to maintaining the scientific integrity of our community.

This is not meant to discourage the mention of companies or products within the appropriate context of a scientific discussion. Instead, my intention is to foster an environment where the primary focus remains on the scientific discourse, avoiding promotion or marketing-driven content.

I believe that collectively, we can continue to build on the success of our community discussions, keeping them informative, insightful, and grounded in scientific principles.


Es una pregunta muy compleja.
Por mi parte estoy de acuerdo en que este es un foro netamente científico, y en este sentido un tema principal es la seguridad (Compuestos relacionados a nitrosaminas, toxicidad, especificaciones, etc.) y otro es la parte analítica (Características fisicoquímicas, metodología, detector, limite de detección, etc.).
Y en este ultimo punto es donde pueden ser un aporte muy útil e incluso en determinado momento pueden darnos soluciones mas viables, ya que parte de su trabajo esta direccionado a proporcionar las herramientas necesarias para las necesidades de la industria farmacéutica.
Pero las condiciones deberían ser que su participación sea netamente científica. Mas allá de que información sea compartida, es importante dejar en claro que los intereses comerciales deben estar en segundo plano.
Prácticamente estoy de acuerdo con varios puntos de vista a esta encuesta. Espero haber entendido la encuesta.

1 Like

Yes but limited: Could have a process that filters anything commercial. If there is anything that supports priority efforts of the scientific community then maybe these potential solutions could be voted on by the community through the filter. If there is enough data or support for utilization of solutions that meet the communities scientific goals and objectives then maybe some new solutions can be considered.


Yes, but limited. Science progresses and prosperous by ‘open discussion’ like this exchange is a prime example. While I encourage the scientific integrity of the forum, I also acknowledge how new resources are helpful to cater need of an hour. If promotions take backseat and company agree to share their resources (can be literature, test methods etc.) with open access to the community for this particular topic, then I’d say ‘Yes’ but I doubt that. OR although I am not too keen on this idea but just a thought → making a rule/filter like provide “one open access resource (with complete details) and one time post is allowed”.

Thank you, everybody who clicked to vote! I appreciate all the comments and feedback … I can assure you 1000% that our community core on science will not take a deviation! I will close the poll this week and make a final call with my internal team. Thanks for your time

I guess that for instance, in case data such nitrites level in several excipients would be freely available, that would be beneficial for all. Apologies if I dont get the point exactly of the poll…

On this specific point - nitrite level varies at the per-batch level, even within the same supplier (see for example Boetzel et al), and there is significant variation in testing methods, meaning that there is a requirement on the drug product manufacturer to validate rather than accepting the supplier’s numbers. As a result I would argue against the inclusion of nitrite levels - and that’s before consideration that the detailed information of levels and testing methods would have to be provided by the suppliers themselves, we couldn’t list them on their behalf. I suspect this is unlikely; even within the closed context of the Lhasa Nitrites data-sharing initiative, supplier names are blinded.


Thank you @David for your clarification.

Right, I see your point. I should have mind it before.

Based on company’s requirements, we will consider reach Lhasa.

Thank you again and have a nice day ahead :slight_smile: