Endotoxin testing methods — what worked for you?

kevin_tulsa said:

The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.

kevin_tulsa has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. 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.

kevin_tulsa said:

The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.

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.

This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. 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.

PeptideChemSF said:

Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.