DanielChem_CHI 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Dr.CardioMD 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: 99.4% purity, 0.0% total related substances. Clean chromatogram with single sharp peak at expected retention time. Exactly what you want to see.
CarlaRPh_TPA said:I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is.
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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
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.