🍪 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 TestingParticulate matter testing — 6 month update

Particulate matter testing — 6 month update

SarahChen_PharmD Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:09 AM 14 replies 1,992 viewsPage 1 of 3
This thread is more than 26 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
SarahChen_PharmD
VIP Member
4,567
22,341
Dec 2023
San Diego, CA
Apr 19, 2024 at 2:09 AM#1

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

What would genuinely help is knowing whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong.

Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.

28 23Dr.ObesityLA, NurseKim_ATL, paul_denver and 25 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
RetaRick_CA
VIP Member
2,012
9,876
Jan 2024
California
Apr 19, 2024 at 3:00 AM#2

Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.

27 22AmyNC_wife, SkepticalSean, Dr.CardioMD and 24 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
ricardo_MIA
Member
378
1,678
Sep 2024
Miami, FL
Apr 19, 2024 at 3:51 AM#3
RetaRick_CA said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

RetaRick_CA has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. 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.

26 21CanadaChris, ZaraB_AL, JakeSmashed95 and 23 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
pam_stl
Member
267
1,123
Oct 2024
St. Louis, MO
Apr 19, 2024 at 4:42 AM#4
SarahChen_PharmD said:
Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

Can confirm the pattern SarahChen_PharmD describes. 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.

25 20SleepDoc_PDX, RegAffairsDC, BiostatsBrad and 22 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
VendorMark
Senior Member
3,456
14,567
Jan 2024
Texas
Online
Apr 19, 2024 at 9:30 AM#5

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

HPLC results interpretation for certificates of analysis: when you get your Janoshik report back, here's what the numbers mean:

  • Purity %: Should be >97%. Below 95% is concerning.
  • Retention time: Should match reference standard for the peptide
  • Related substances: Degradation products should be <2% total
  • Single impurity: No individual impurity should exceed 1%

My last batch: 99.4% purity, 0.2% total related substances. Clean chromatogram with single sharp peak at expected retention time. Exactly what you want to see.

24 19claudia_zurich, nancy_portland, rick_sfbay and 21 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