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.
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.
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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsanna.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.
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.