Particulate matter testing — 6 month update

kate.chem 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.

steph_laguna said:

Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

HPLC results interpretation for certificates of analysis: when you get your Janoshik report back, here's what the numbers mean:

• Purity %: Should be >97%. Below 95% is concerning.
• Retention time: Should match reference standard for the peptide
• Related substances: Degradation products should be <2% total
• Single impurity: No individual impurity should exceed 1%

My last batch: 99.3% purity, 0.1% total related substances. Clean chromatogram with single sharp peak at expected retention time. Exactly what you want to see.

Dr.SportsMedIN said:

I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is.

Community-verified vendors for certificates of analysis: I maintain a spreadsheet of Janoshik-verified test results submitted by community members. Across 53 submitted tests:

• 78% tested at ≥98% purity
• 15% tested at 95-98% purity
• 7% tested at <95% purity (concerning)

The vendors with consistently high purity results are listed in the Vendor Directory. We update monthly based on new community submissions.

One thing that is still open after rick_sfbay’s answer:

Why two laboratories report different purity for the same batch, and which number to believe?

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.