Is 96.4% a realistic purity ceiling for cagrilintide given its chain length?

Stated plainly: 96.4% · cagrilintide.

I have worked this out and I would like someone to find the error, because I suspect there is one.

My working so far, for the record, is below, and I am fairly sure the error is in the unit conversion rather than the algebra.

How many significant figures are actually justified here?

Mechanically, start from what the detector sees, because that tells you what the number means.

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.

More usefully, 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.

Proline conformer interconversion kinetics are well-characterised and the half-life is of the same order as the chromatographic peak width at room temperature.

The limitation is that single-digit micro-impurities become invisible at typical reporting thresholds, so "no impurities detected" means "none above one in two thousand."

The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.

To be exact about it, identity and purity are orthogonal, and a high purity says almost nothing about whether the peak is actually what you think it is.

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.

Mechanically, 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.

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.

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 are ranking vendors, specify a method and have all samples tested at the same place.

Worth being precise here: 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.

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.

One qualification: achieving purity above roughly 98 per cent on a 30-residue peptide is fighting the chemistry of synthesis, not the quality of the purification.

Compare purity within a single laboratory on the same method, never across laboratories.

Stated carefully, 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.

Tailing factor measures peak shape, and a badly tailing peak spreads into the region where small impurities live, forcing tangent-skim integration that assigns tail area to the main peak.

The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.