🍪 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

SaraMom3 Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 3:40 AM 10 replies 1,543 viewsPage 1 of 2
This thread is more than 14 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
SaraMom3
Member
456
2,345
Aug 2024
Ohio
Apr 6, 2025 at 3:40 AM#1

Collecting this in one place because it comes up every few weeks and the answer is always assembled from scratch. 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

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.

The condition it depends on

Mass spec answers a question purity does not: identity. High purity tells you one thing dominates the chromatogram, not that it is the molecule you ordered. A mass within about a dalton of expected is the identity check.

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

The bit I cannot resolve on my own is why two laboratories report different purity for the same batch, and which number to believe. Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.

— SaraMom3 · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
42 12BethLabQueen, ChrisMacros, KetoKyle and 39 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PharmD_Rodriguez
Senior Member
3,456
14,567
Jan 2024
Miami, FL
Apr 6, 2025 at 3:53 AM#2
SaraMom3 said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

No disagreement with SaraMom3. One condition attached. 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.

41 11TinaHashiRN, robert_kc, dan_philly and 38 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
JennaRN
Senior Member
1,987
8,923
Mar 2024
Colorado
Online
Apr 6, 2025 at 4:06 AM#3
SaraMom3 said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

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.

Happy to go further on any of that.

40 10BiostatsBrad, PeptideSynthNJ, Dr.KarenChen and 37 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
Dr.AddMedPHL
Senior Member
1,234
6,234
Mar 2024
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 6, 2025 at 4:19 AM#4

Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. 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.

Last edited: Apr 6, 2025 at 6:19 AM
39 9TomFromTexas, mike.trainer_LA, sarah_nash92 and 36 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
KetoKyle
Member
678
3,456
Jul 2024
Utah
Apr 6, 2025 at 5:29 AM#5
PharmD_Rodriguez said:
The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.

Second this.

38 8JakeBK_lifts, DerekSJ_a1c, paige_pharma and 35 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