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.
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 contradictory.
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.
The bit I cannot resolve on my own is why two laboratories report different purity for the same batch, and which number to believe.
Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.
COA_Karl said:The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.
No disagreement with COA_Karl. One condition attached. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsnick_newbie 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…
Same position here, arrived at the long way round. 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.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.
Third-party testing services for certificates of analysis besides Janoshik:
- Janoshik: Gold standard for peptide community, ~$152, 10-14 day turnaround
- Valitech: US-based, ISO 17025 accredited, ~$242
- Eurofins: Full pharmaceutical testing suite, more expensive but comprehensive
- ChemTox: Basic identity and purity testing, ~$112
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.