This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. 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.
I have a certificate reporting 99.2% purity and 6.1mg content on a vial sold as 5mg, and I cannot work out whether those two numbers are consistent or contradictory.
The narrow version of the question is whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong.
Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.
DataDave said:The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.
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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsanders_CPH said:I have a certificate reporting 99.2% purity and 6.1mg content on a vial sold as 5mg, and I cannot work out whether those two numbers are consistent or…
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so. 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.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.
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: 99.3% purity, 0.1% total related substances. Clean chromatogram with single sharp peak at expected retention time. Exactly what you want to see.