Numbers first: 98.8% · Janoshik · 96.4%.
Before I write this off, I want to check whether it is a known failure mode.
I have the lot number, the certificate and the date, and I am happy to compare them against anything.
What would you check first, and what would you conclude from each outcome?
2.4 percentage points, and the direction is the informative half. Janoshik reports 98.8 per cent and the certificate 96.4, so the independent figure is higher. As impurity that is 1.2 per cent against 3.6 — 0.33 times as much unassigned area, which is the unusual direction and worth a second look at the integration. Method differences usually make the independent number the lower one, so an independent result above the certificate points at integration limits, a different wavelength, or a different definition of the main peak rather than at a better vial. Ask both parties for the method section before you decide which figure is wrong, because the answer is often neither.
Start from what the detector sees, because that tells you what the number means.
Gradient slope controls resolution, and gentler slopes resolve co-eluting impurities into separate peaks — so the better method reports the worse purity number.
| Δ mass (Da) | Most likely cause | Distinguishing feature |
|---|---|---|
| +1 | Deamidation (Asn or Gln) | New peak, slightly earlier retention |
| −17 | Loss of ammonia | Often with deamidation |
| −18 | Dehydration / succinimide | pH-dependent, reversible |
| +16 | Oxidation (Met, Trp) | Earlier retention, light-related |
| −128 | Missing Gln or Lys | Deletion sequence from synthesis |
| 0 | Isomer: racemisation or scrambling | Same mass, shifted retention |
The part that matters: sample solvent strength affects peak shape — if you inject in strong solvent on a gradient starting in weak solvent, the solvent peak can distort your main peak or create a false shoulder.
Inter-laboratory studies on identical peptide material routinely find half-a-per-cent to a full-per-cent spreads in reported purity on the same sample.
The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsMore usefully, the single most important distinction is between what purity measures — the fraction of detected material that is your target — and what you actually want to know — how much of the material in the vial is your target.
Detection wavelength matters because 214 nm sees the peptide backbone while 280 nm sees only aromatic side chains — so truncation impurities lacking a tryptophan are invisible at 280 nm.
Mobile phase additive choice affects ionisation and peak shape — TFA gives sharp peaks but suppresses mass spectrometry signal, formic acid gives worse peaks but preserves signal.
Compare purity within a single laboratory on the same method, never across laboratories.
edited 18 Feb 2026 by micron22 — clarified the distinction between purity and content
Purity is a method-dependent figure, and that is not a limitation of the measurement, it is a property of what the measurement actually answers.
Retention time is sequence-specific and method-specific, so comparing your result to a supplier value using a different method is meaningless without method documentation.
Mass on column affects detector linearity and peak overlap — overloading broadens peaks and hides neighbours, while underloading improves resolution but loses sensitivity.
The ICH Q3A impurity thresholds and the relevant pharmacopoeial chapters all specify method validation requirements that almost no research-grade certificate claims to meet.
If you are ranking vendors, specify a method and have all samples tested at the same place.
edited 20 Dec 2025 by s_kalniete — updated for the 2026 guidance change
Read the chromatogram before you read the number, because the number without the trace is not a measurement, it is a claim.
Buffer versus acid in the mobile phase changes the ionisation state of basic and acidic residues, shifting retention and selectivity — same vial, potentially different separation.
The caveat is that purity without identity is only half an answer — a high purity does not mean the peak is actually what you think it is.
If you only pay for one test, pay for quantified content. Purity is the number everyone quotes and content is the number that changes what you do.
The underlying point is that understanding purity requires separating the chemistry from the method from the reporting convention, and the three are not independent.
Temperature affects the dynamics of molecular conformation, and if a peptide has proline residues that interconvert on the chromatographic timescale, the peak will split or shoulder at low temperature and collapse at high temperature.
Published side-by-side method comparisons show that a two-point difference in purity on the same vial is easily explained by method choice alone.
Worth noting that method standardisation is poor in the research-grade space compared to pharmaceutical work, so identical-looking methods can produce different results.
In practice: ask for the chromatogram, check the method section, check the lot number against the vial, and set your accept threshold before you see the result rather than after.
Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.