Accepted answer
The part that matters: tracking that updates at every hop is a better supplier signal than the transit time itself.
Tracking quality is the more informative signal: continuous scanning at every hop indicates a real logistics chain, and a tracking number that goes dark for a week indicates something else.
Reported transit ranges with tracking
| Lane | Reported range | Median | Where the variance comes from |
|---|
| Coastal China → western Europe | 8–14 days | 11 days | Customs queue at the destination hub |
| Inland China → western Europe | 10–16 days | 13 days | Domestic leg to the international gateway |
| China → United Kingdom | 8–13 days | 10 days | Single clearance point, usually quick |
| China → United States, west | 8–16 days | 12 days | Onward domestic carrier |
| China → Australia | 10–20 days | 15 days | Fewer direct services; inspection rate |
| Regional warehouse → same region | 2–5 days | 3 days | No clearance step at all |
These are ranges members have reported, not quotes. Judge a lane on whether tracking scans continuously rather than on days elapsed.
The underlying point is that anything shipped in solution is a genuinely different risk, because hydrolysis and deamidation proceed in the aqueous phase and are strongly temperature-dependent.
Single-use temperature loggers are inexpensive and are standard practice in any supply chain where temperature actually matters.
Nothing here is medical advice, and research-use compounds are not approved for human use.
Judge the lane by tracking continuity rather than by days elapsed.