Batch Identification Details
A reliable peptide Certificate of Analysis should clearly display batch or lot numbers that match the product label. This connection confirms traceability from production to testing. Dates of manufacture and analysis are equally important because peptides can degrade over time. Without matching identifiers and timelines, there is no way to verify that the document actually belongs to the vial in hand.
Purity Percentage Clarity
One of the most critical elements in a peptide COA is the reported purity level, usually expressed as a percentage. High performance liquid chromatography results should be listed to show how much of the sample is the intended peptide How to choose high purity peptides versus impurities. Vague statements about purity without actual numeric values or test methods are a major warning sign for buyers.
Testing Method Transparency
A trustworthy COA explains the analytical methods used to verify the peptide’s composition. Common techniques include HPLC and mass spectrometry. These methods confirm molecular weight and structure. When laboratories clearly state their procedures, it demonstrates scientific accountability. Missing methodology details make it difficult to judge the reliability or accuracy of the reported findings.
Impurity and Contaminant Data
Beyond purity, the document should mention the presence or absence of contaminants such as residual solvents, heavy metals, or bacterial endotoxins. Even tiny amounts of unwanted substances can affect safety and stability. A detailed impurity profile shows the manufacturer has screened for risks rather than only highlighting favorable numbers that make the product look clean.
Laboratory Credentials and Verification
The credibility of the testing laboratory matters just as much as the results. A legitimate COA lists the lab name, contact details, and sometimes accreditation information. Signatures from qualified analysts add another layer of accountability. Independent third party testing is generally more trustworthy than in house reports because it reduces the chance of biased reporting.