🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsCOA & Analytical TestingCOA database project — my results so far

COA database project — my results so far

FranDenver Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:44 PM 5 replies 683 viewsPage 1 of 1
FranDenver
Member
267
1,123
Oct 2024
Denver, CO
Mar 23, 2026 at 10:44 PM#1

Writing this once so I can stop repeating it across threads. It is about certificates of analysis, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.

What is actually established

Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself calibrated, the gradient and column, the detection wavelength, and where the integration baseline was drawn. A percentage point or two between competent labs is expected. What is not expected is a large gap, and the usual explanation there is that one report is not of the batch in your hand.

The condition it depends on

One addition: an unstated method makes a report close to uninterpretable. "99% pure" without the technique, the standard and the conditions is a claim, not a measurement.

The practical version

The four things to check on any report, in order: does it name your batch, who commissioned it, what method was used, and does it report content as well as purity. A report failing any of those is weak evidence regardless of the percentage on it.

What I am not sure about

What I actually want to know is why two laboratories report different purity for the same batch, and which number to believe. Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.

— FranDenver · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
8 3Dr.RenalNash, LipidDoc_ATL, BariatricNurseD and 5 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
VendorMark
Senior Member
3,456
14,567
Jan 2024
Texas
Online
Mar 23, 2026 at 11:42 PM#2
FranDenver said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate. Purity is a relative area measurement: the main peak as a percentage of total peak area in the chromatogram. Content is an absolute mass measurement against a reference standard. A vial can be 99% pure and contain 6.1mg — pure material, overfilled — or 99% pure and contain 3mg, which is pure material and a short fill. Purity tells you what fraction of what is there is the right molecule; content tells you how much of it there is. You need both, and a certificate with only purity is telling you half the story.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

7 2KristenIndy, MarkLI_maint, Dr.PeteFamMed and 4 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
NurseKim_ATL
Senior Member
1,678
7,234
Feb 2024
Atlanta, GA
Mar 24, 2026 at 12:40 AM#3
FranDenver said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is. The document tells you about a sample somebody chose to send, at a moment in time, and nothing about the vial in your hand. Independent purchase-and-test is a different quality of evidence and everything else is inference.

6 1ingrid_STO, pete_nash, hank_denver and 3 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
chris_chi24
Member
389
1,678
Sep 2024
Chicago, IL
Mar 24, 2026 at 1:38 AM#4

Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers. Does the report name the batch on your vial. Is the date consistent with when that batch existed. Is it addressed to the vendor or to the person who paid for the test. Was the sample taken from general stock or supplied by the vendor. A perfect certificate for a different batch is worth nothing, and vendor-supplied samples are the most common way a genuine report ends up misleading.

5 0PurityPaulOR, MaxMetOK, MounjBrad and 2 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
MaxMetOK
Member
312
1,123
Dec 2024
Oklahoma
Mar 24, 2026 at 7:10 AM#5
VendorMark said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

Last edited: Mar 24, 2026 at 12:10 PM
4 24PurityPaulOR, MaxMetOK, MounjBrad and 1 other
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

HPLC vs UPLC for peptide purity — method comparison study18 replies
Mass spectrometry for peptide identity verification — ESI-MS guide7 replies
Endotoxin testing methods — LAL vs recombinant Factor C17 replies
Red flags on COAs — how to spot a fake certificate5 replies
USP reference standards for peptide verification — sourcing guide3 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register