🍪 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 TestingIs 98% purity actually good or should I be worried — need advice

Is 98% purity actually good or should I be worried — need advice

tyler_CSCS Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 3:54 AM 12 replies 1,823 viewsPage 1 of 3
This thread is more than 18 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
tyler_CSCS
Member
567
2,567
Jun 2024
Phoenix, AZ
Nov 24, 2024 at 3:54 AM#1

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

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

Tell me what I have not thought of.

21 16sean_dublin, hannah_MT, Dr.SportsMedIN and 18 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.SportsMedIN
Senior Member
1,456
6,789
Feb 2024
Indianapolis, IN
Nov 24, 2024 at 4:24 AM#2

Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.

20 15lisa_labSD, adam_van, Dr.SurgeonPGH and 17 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
LipidDoc_ATL
Senior Member
1,123
5,678
Apr 2024
Atlanta, GA
Nov 24, 2024 at 4:54 AM#3
Dr.SportsMedIN said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. 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.

19 14AttorneyGrant, DebRD_ATL, KristenIndy and 16 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
newstart_MO
New Member
12
45
Feb 2026
Springfield, MO
Nov 24, 2024 at 5:24 AM#4
tyler_CSCS said:
Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

Same position here, arrived at the long way round. 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.

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

18 13TrialNerd_Beth, HPLC_Greg, LibrarianMeg and 15 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.AddMedPHL
Senior Member
1,234
6,234
Mar 2024
Philadelphia, PA
Nov 24, 2024 at 8:09 AM#5

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.

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.

17 12JessicaM_2024, TomFromTexas, mike.trainer_LA and 14 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