The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Topic summary

Second pass at: Certificates issued by the seller versus by a laboratory

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 93, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
CC
c.cardosoTL216 Jan 2025#13
dr_okonkwo, post #11: An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is. If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link it. Go to post

Confirming post #11 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

A chromatogram supplied as a small image is legible for peak shape and not for baseline detail. That is enough to sanity-check an integration and not enough to reproduce it.

33 likes in reply to #11 18mo
FW
f.weissTL218 Jan 2025#20

The distinction between release testing and characterisation is one industrial documents make and retail ones usually do not. It is the difference between "we tested every lot for this" and "we established this once".

Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.

31 likes 18mo
KV
k.vanheckeTL221 Jan 2025#35

The distinction between release testing and characterisation is one industrial documents make and retail ones usually do not. It is the difference between "we tested every lot for this" and "we established this once".

26 likes 18mo
FV
f.villalobosTL223 Jan 2025#44

An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is.

28 likes 18mo
DN
d.nilsenTL224 Jan 2025#52
bench_notes, post #37: Post #35 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. When a document puts the specification in the result column, it has told you the release criterion, not the measurement. Those are different claims and the second is weaker. Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine. Go to post

The distinction between release testing and characterisation is one industrial documents make and retail ones usually do not. It is the difference between "we tested every lot for this" and "we established this once".

Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.

30 likes in reply to #37 18mo
LG
lc_gradientTL3Analytical chemist29 Jan 2025#77

An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is.

30 likes 18mo
TD
t.duarteTL229 Jan 2025#80

An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is.

Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.

28 likes 18mo
EN
electrolyte_notesTL2Regular30 Jan 2025#84

Confirming post #81 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is.

Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.

30 likes 18mo
AA
a.adebayoTL231 Jan 2025#92
n.abernathy, post #33: An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is. Go to post

The distinction between release testing and characterisation is one industrial documents make and retail ones usually do not. It is the difference between "we tested every lot for this" and "we established this once".

The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.

32 likes in reply to #33 18mo

Read the full topic (93 posts)

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Batch date after test date, and other internal inconsistencies
Batch date after test date, and other internal inconsistencies — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Proposing that batch date deserves a maintained page rather than a…
VODMTBBTAM+27 31 4.9k 7mo
Revisiting: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis
Revisiting: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view…
HFRJPNEAPK+37 41 656 3mo
Coming back to: Batch date after test date, and other internal inconsistencies
On the subject in the title: Batch date after test date, and other internal inconsistencies Working notes rather than a conclusion. Batch date — I have the observation and I do not trust my interpretation of…
CILWCDJBDP+21 27 420 3h
Water content on a certificate and why it changes the arithmetic
Water content on a certificate and why it changes the arithmetic — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Water content: setting out the arithmetic in full, because I have had to…
VBEPAKJNHB+19 23 24k 14mo
Coming back to: Purity assay versus content assay: two different numbers
Purity assay versus content assay: two different numbers — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking about Purity assay versus content assay directly, because I have read four…
PMDTAZOVEV+71 77 31k 23mo

Related topics — sharing the tags certificate of analysis, amino acid analysis, batch & lot numbers

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Counter-ion form: the field almost nobody reports
Counter-ion form: the field almost nobody reports Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Counter-ion form, from the point of view of someone who has read the…
ANMBERFH 3 11k 2mo
What a certificate commits its issuer to — the long version
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What a certificate commits its issuer to — the long version A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a certificate in front…
OVLEJICLKP+20 26 21k 2d
When a tidy document is a signal and when it is decoration — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: When a tidy document is a signal and when it is decoration — does this still hold? Tidy document keeps being re-asked here and I think that is…
VAFKTDJN+3 7 22k 11mo
Revisiting: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis
Revisiting: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view…
HFRJPNEAPK+37 41 656 3mo
Water content on a certificate and why it changes the arithmetic
Water content on a certificate and why it changes the arithmetic — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Water content: setting out the arithmetic in full, because I have had to…
VBEPAKJNHB+19 23 24k 14mo