🍪 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 TestingResidual solvent testing on COAs — anyone have experience?

Residual solvent testing on COAs — anyone have experience?

anna.melb_AU Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 11:18 PM 10 replies 1,250 viewsPage 1 of 2
This thread is more than 7 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
anna.melb_AU
Member
678
2,890
Apr 2024
Melbourne, AU
Oct 27, 2025 at 11:18 PM#1

Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

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.

So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong.

Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.

1 21DerekSJ_a1c
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.GastroMayo
VIP Member
2,345
13,456
Jan 2024
Mayo Clinic, MN
Oct 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM#2

Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. 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.

50 20VendorMark, COA_Karl, MikeFit_NJ and 47 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.MetabolicMD
VIP Member
2,345
16,789
Jan 2024
Rochester, MN
Oct 27, 2025 at 11:38 PM#3
Dr.GastroMayo said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. 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.

Last edited: Oct 28, 2025 at 1:38 AM
49 19HealthEcon_DC, PedsEndoPhilly, SleepDoc_PDX and 46 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
jennifer_SEA
Member
234
890
Nov 2024
Seattle, WA
Oct 27, 2025 at 11:48 PM#4
anna.melb_AU said:
Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

Can confirm the pattern anna.melb_AU describes. 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.

Last edited: Oct 28, 2025 at 5:48 AM
48 18jim_asheville, matt_MKE, Dr.ReproEndo and 45 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.RheumBOS
Member
567
2,345
Apr 2024
Boston, MA
Oct 28, 2025 at 12:39 AM#5

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

Reconstituted peptide stability data for certificates of analysis: I had Janoshik test my reconstituted vial at day 1, day 14, and day 28 stored in the refrigerator.

Day 1: 99.6% purity
Day 14: 98.3% purity
Day 28: 97.0% purity

Minimal degradation over 28 days when properly refrigerated. This confirms the standard 28-day beyond-use date is appropriate. Beyond 28 days, I'd reconstitute a fresh vial to be safe.

47 17Dr.PulmRoch, maya_sedona, stefan_berlin and 44 others
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