🍪 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 TestingWhat even IS a COA and why should I care — my results so far

What even IS a COA and why should I care — my results so far

Dr.BariatricHTX Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 2:28 PM 10 replies 1,356 viewsPage 1 of 2
This thread is more than 9 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
Dr.BariatricHTX
Senior Member
1,456
7,234
Feb 2024
Houston, TX
Sep 2, 2025 at 2:28 PM#1

Writing this once so I can stop repeating it across threads. 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

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.

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.

— Dr.BariatricHTX · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
40 10CarlaRPh_TPA, steph_laguna, fiona_glasgow and 37 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PharmacoVig_BOS
Senior Member
1,567
8,901
Feb 2024
Boston, MA
Sep 2, 2025 at 3:45 PM#2
Dr.BariatricHTX said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

No disagreement with Dr.BariatricHTX. One condition attached. 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.

39 9Dr.GutHealth, amsterdam_pete, LondonLisa and 36 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
SarahChen_PharmD
VIP Member
4,567
22,341
Dec 2023
San Diego, CA
Sep 2, 2025 at 5:02 PM#3
Dr.BariatricHTX said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

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.

38 8paul_denver, TinaHashiRN, robert_kc and 35 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
james_edin
Member
289
1,234
Sep 2024
Edinburgh, UK
Sep 2, 2025 at 6:19 PM#4

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

37 7oliver_london, tane_welly, Dr.PathRoch and 34 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
rick_sfbay
Member
289
1,234
Jan 2025
San Francisco, CA
Sep 3, 2025 at 1:46 AM#5
PharmacoVig_BOS said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

36 6Dr.BariatricHTX, LindaRN_retired, tommy_boulder and 33 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