🍪 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 database project — my results so far

COA database project — my results so far

nick_SD_fit Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 6:08 AM 13 replies 2,095 viewsPage 1 of 3
This thread is more than 23 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
nick_SD_fit
Member
278
1,234
Sep 2024
San Diego, CA
Jun 26, 2024 at 6:08 AM#1

Collecting this in one place because it comes up every few weeks and the answer is always assembled from scratch. 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

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.

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

What I am after is why two laboratories report different purity for the same batch, and which number to believe. Tell me what I have not thought of.

— nick_SD_fit · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
19 14SkepticalSean, Dr.CardioMD, EndoResFellow and 16 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.PeteFamMed
Senior Member
2,012
9,234
Jan 2024
Minneapolis, MN
Jun 26, 2024 at 6:15 AM#2
nick_SD_fit said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

Agreeing with nick_SD_fit, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. 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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Last edited: Jun 26, 2024 at 7:15 AM
18 13tommy_boulder, hyun_seoul, jim_asheville and 15 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
BethLabQueen
Senior Member
1,234
5,678
May 2024
Virginia
Online
Jun 26, 2024 at 6:22 AM#3
nick_SD_fit 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.

17 12lori_vegas, Dr.PulmRoch, maya_sedona and 14 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
Dr.EM_Chicago
Member
567
2,567
May 2024
Chicago, IL
Jun 26, 2024 at 6:29 AM#4

This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. 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.

Last edited: Jun 26, 2024 at 10:29 AM
16 11lucas_SP_BR, lisa_labSD, adam_van and 13 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
DoseLogDan
Member
201
567
Feb 2025
Montana
Jun 26, 2024 at 7:04 AM#5
Dr.PeteFamMed said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.

15 10carlos_SATX, sophie_paris, mel_PDX and 12 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