🍪 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 TestingCOA database project — my results so far

COA database project — my results so far

FranDenver Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:44 PM 5 replies 683 viewsPage 1 of 1
FranDenver
Member
267
1,123
Oct 2024
Denver, CO
Mar 23, 2026 at 10:44 PM#1

This is the version of the explanation I wish somebody had given me, written down before I forget what confused me. It is about certificates of analysis, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.

What is actually established

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.

The condition it depends on

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.

The practical version

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.

What I am not sure about

So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: why two laboratories report different purity for the same batch, and which number to believe. Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.

— FranDenver · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
8 3Dr.RenalNash, LipidDoc_ATL, BariatricNurseD and 5 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
COA_Karl
Senior Member
2,123
8,901
Jan 2024
Pennsylvania
Mar 23, 2026 at 11:42 PM#2
FranDenver said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

No disagreement with FranDenver. One condition attached. 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.

7 2jim_asheville, matt_MKE, Dr.ReproEndo and 4 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
RetaRick_CA
VIP Member
2,012
9,876
Jan 2024
California
Mar 24, 2026 at 12:40 AM#3
FranDenver said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

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.

6 1DadBodDave, AmyNC_wife, SkepticalSean and 3 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
Dr.ObesityLA
VIP Member
3,567
19,876
Dec 2023
Los Angeles, CA
Mar 24, 2026 at 1:38 AM#4

Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. 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: Mar 24, 2026 at 2:38 AM
5 0chris_chi24, tampaLisa73, KarenAZ_mom and 2 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
wei_SG
Member
234
890
Nov 2024
Singapore, SG
Mar 24, 2026 at 7:10 AM#5
COA_Karl said:
The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.

Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.

Last edited: Mar 24, 2026 at 8:10 AM
4 24JenPlateau, SallyK_inj, CryptoCarl and 1 other
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