🍪 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 red flag compilation — what worked for you? Page 4

COA red flag compilation — what worked for you?

PharmD_Rodriguez Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 6:03 PM 28 replies 1,920 viewsPage 4 of 6
BrianDallas92
Member
312
1,456
Oct 2024
Dallas, TX
Feb 6, 2025 at 4:40 PM#16
TrialTracker_MD said:
Vendor reputation tracking for vendor vetting: I maintain a personal spreadsheet with every order I've placed — date, vendor, batch number, Janoshik…

Same position here, arrived at the long way round. 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: Feb 6, 2025 at 5:40 PM
21 19Dr.PathRoch, mona_PHX, andrew_nyc and 18 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.PathRoch
Member
456
2,123
Jun 2024
Rochester, MN
Feb 8, 2025 at 8:50 PM#17

One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

Last edited: Feb 9, 2025 at 2:50 AM
22 20InsuranceTom, WendyG_ATL, SaraMom3 and 19 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
AttorneyGrant
Member
567
2,890
Apr 2024
Washington, DC
Feb 11, 2025 at 12:59 AM#18

One thing that is still open after LabKate’s answer:

Whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong?

Last edited: Feb 11, 2025 at 1:59 AM
23 21JenMemphis, pat_auckland, Dr.GastroMayo and 20 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
KarenAZ_mom
Member
567
2,567
Aug 2024
Scottsdale, AZ
Feb 13, 2025 at 5:07 AM#19
Dr.PathRoch said:
Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Pushing back on Dr.PathRoch here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Last edited: Feb 13, 2025 at 10:07 AM
24 22LibrarianMeg, bri_stats, pete_manc_UK and 21 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
mike_mod
Moderator
7,234
19,823
Nov 2023
New York
Online
Feb 15, 2025 at 9:14 AM#20

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.

Last edited: Feb 15, 2025 at 11:14 AM
46 19PurityPaulOR, MaxMetOK, MounjBrad and 43 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