🍪 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 TestingUSP reference standards for peptide verification — anyone have experience? Page 2

USP reference standards for peptide verification — anyone have experience?

lisa_labSD Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:05 AM 13 replies 1,991 viewsPage 2 of 3
Dr.SleepRoch
Senior Member
1,123
5,678
Apr 2024
Rochester, MN
Sep 24, 2024 at 2:34 PM#6
HPLC_Greg said:
The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.

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.

23 18sarah_TO, wendy_avl, jason_paloalto and 20 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
BethLabQueen
Senior Member
1,234
5,678
May 2024
Virginia
Online
Sep 24, 2024 at 3:56 PM#7
lisa_labSD said:
I have a certificate reporting 99.2% purity and 6.1mg content on a vial sold as 5mg, and I cannot work out whether those two numbers are consistent or…

Vendor quality matters when discussing certificates of analysis. I've tested my last 4 batches through Janoshik and purity has ranged from 98.3% to 100.1%. Consistency is key.

For anyone new: always request the COA, and consider independent verification. The $300 for a Janoshik test is worth the peace of mind.

22 17Dr.PulmRoch, maya_sedona, stefan_berlin and 19 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.NephBHM_UK
Member
456
2,123
Jun 2024
Birmingham, UK
Sep 24, 2024 at 5:18 PM#8
Dr.SleepRoch said:
I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is.

My HPLC chromatogram analysis for certificates of analysis — I sent my batch to Janoshik and here's what the results showed:

Main peak retention time: 14.7 minutes (consistent with semaglutide reference standard)
Peak purity: 98.0%
Related substances: 0.7% (single impurity at 8.0 minutes — likely a synthesis intermediate)
Mass spec: m/z 4113.58 (matches expected molecular weight)

This is a clean result. The mass spec confirmation is particularly important — it proves the molecule is actually semaglutide and not a substitution.

Last edited: Sep 24, 2024 at 11:18 PM
21 16PharmacoVig_BOS, SurmountFan_IN, PeptideChemSF and 18 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
raj_cambridge
Member
489
2,123
Jun 2024
Cambridge, MA
Sep 24, 2024 at 6:40 PM#9

Following on from tom_AK — and this may be the naive question:

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

20 15PharmHunterJen, TomTeleRx, DoseLogDan and 17 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
lisa_labSD
Member
278
1,234
Oct 2024
San Diego, CA
Sep 25, 2024 at 1:15 AM#10

Closing the loop on my own question.

Purity and content being different measurements was the piece I was missing. The vial was overfilled and pure, which is a very different problem from the one I thought I had.

Last edited: Sep 25, 2024 at 4:15 AM
10 8cory_ATX, lori_vegas, Dr.PulmRoch and 7 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