🍪 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 TestingParticulate matter testing — 6 month update

Particulate matter testing — 6 month update

SarahChen_PharmD Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:09 AM 14 replies 1,992 viewsPage 1 of 3
This thread is more than 26 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
SarahChen_PharmD
VIP Member
4,567
22,341
Dec 2023
San Diego, CA
Apr 19, 2024 at 2:09 AM#1

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

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 after is whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong.

If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.

28 23Dr.ObesityLA, NurseKim_ATL, paul_denver and 25 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.SurgeonPGH
Senior Member
1,345
6,789
Mar 2024
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 19, 2024 at 3:00 AM#2

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.

27 22TomTeleRx, DoseLogDan, SleepFixSam and 24 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
B12Beth
Member
289
890
Oct 2024
Maryland
Apr 19, 2024 at 3:51 AM#3
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

Agreed, and mass spec answers a question purity does not: identity. High purity tells you one thing dominates the chromatogram, not that it is the molecule you ordered. A mass within about a dalton of expected is the identity check.

26 21DanielChem_CHI, marco_milano, pam_columbus and 23 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
DadBodDave
Member
187
923
Nov 2024
Ohio
Apr 19, 2024 at 4:42 AM#4
SarahChen_PharmD said:
Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

Can confirm the pattern SarahChen_PharmD describes. 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.

25 20Dr.GastroMayo, JakeBK_lifts, DerekSJ_a1c and 22 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
chris_chi24
Member
389
1,678
Sep 2024
Chicago, IL
Apr 19, 2024 at 9:30 AM#5

From the other side of the consultation, briefly.

I tested my certificates of analysis batch through Janoshik — 98.4% purity. That's within acceptable range for compounded peptides. Turnaround was 10 business days.

The test costs ~$124 but gives you actual HPLC chromatography data plus mass spec confirmation. For the peace of mind alone, it's worth every penny. I test every new batch from a new vendor.

24 19SleepFixSam, PurityPaulOR, MaxMetOK and 21 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