🍪 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

steph_laguna Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 1:45 PM 12 replies 966 viewsPage 1 of 3
steph_laguna
Member
234
1,123
Nov 2024
Laguna Beach, CA
Feb 28, 2026 at 1:45 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.

What I am trying to establish is whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong.

If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.

47 17Dr.EndoEP, GraceAZ_72, carl_compliance and 44 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
julia.endo
Senior Member
1,890
9,012
Feb 2024
Cincinnati, OH
Feb 28, 2026 at 2:11 PM#2

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.

46 16mark_tokyo, hans_munich, jason_sac26 and 43 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
KetoKyle
Member
678
3,456
Jul 2024
Utah
Feb 28, 2026 at 2:37 PM#3
julia.endo said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

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.

45 15pat_auckland, Dr.GastroMayo, JakeBK_lifts and 42 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
BrianDallas92
Member
312
1,456
Oct 2024
Dallas, TX
Feb 28, 2026 at 3:03 PM#4
steph_laguna said:
Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

Can confirm the pattern steph_laguna 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.

44 14Dr.EndoEP, GraceAZ_72, carl_compliance and 41 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
SarahChen_PharmD
VIP Member
4,567
22,341
Dec 2023
San Diego, CA
Feb 28, 2026 at 5:27 PM#5

From the other side of the consultation, briefly.

Third-party testing services for certificates of analysis besides Janoshik:

  • Janoshik: Gold standard for peptide community, ~$129, 10-14 day turnaround
  • Valitech: US-based, ISO 17025 accredited, ~$209
  • Eurofins: Full pharmaceutical testing suite, more expensive but comprehensive
  • ChemTox: Basic identity and purity testing, ~$109

Janoshik is the community standard but any ISO-accredited analytical lab can verify peptide identity and purity. The key is independence — don't rely solely on the vendor's own testing.

Last edited: Feb 28, 2026 at 8:27 PM
43 13robert_kc, dan_philly, MeganSA_TX and 40 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