🍪 The GLP Lounge 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 TestingParticulate matter testing — 6 month update

Particulate matter testing — 6 month update

steph_laguna Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 1:45 PM 12 replies 966 viewsPage 1 of 3
steph_laguna
Member
234
1,123
Nov 2024
Laguna Beach, CA
Feb 28, 2026 at 1:45 PM#1

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

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 narrow version of the question is whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong.

Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.

47 17Dr.EndoEP, GraceAZ_72, carl_compliance and 44 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
kate.chem
VIP Member
3,890
17,654
Dec 2023
California
Feb 28, 2026 at 2:11 PM#2

Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.

Last edited: Feb 28, 2026 at 5:11 PM
46 16VanRx_Mike, steve_okc, dave_SLC and 43 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
rick_sfbay
Member
289
1,234
Jan 2025
San Francisco, CA
Feb 28, 2026 at 2:37 PM#3
kate.chem said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

Agreed, and 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.

45 15james_edin, FranDenver, Dr.BariatricHTX and 42 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics

Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.

View Results
SurmountFan_IN
Member
789
3,456
May 2024
Indianapolis, IN
Feb 28, 2026 at 3:03 PM#4
steph_laguna said:
Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so. 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.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

44 14rachel_ABQ, traveltech_sara, AttorneyGrant and 41 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
lisa_labSD
Member
278
1,234
Oct 2024
San Diego, CA
Feb 28, 2026 at 5:27 PM#5

From the other side of the consultation, briefly.

COA red flags for certificates of analysis — here's what to look for when reviewing a Certificate of Analysis:

  • No HPLC data: If there's no chromatography graph, it's not a real COA
  • Exact 100% purity: Suspicious — real testing always shows slight variation
  • No batch number: Can't trace back to specific production
  • No endotoxin testing: For injectables, this is essential
  • Template looks like it was made in Word: Professional labs have standardized formats

I have seen fake COAs that are literally photoshopped. Always verify independently if possible.

Last edited: Feb 28, 2026 at 8:27 PM
43 13cory_ATX, lori_vegas, Dr.PulmRoch and 40 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