Numbers first: 97.6% · purity figure.
I can parse the result. I am less sure what it licenses me to conclude.
I have deliberately not looked at anyone else’s interpretation yet.
What does this actually establish, and what does it not?
Put another way, the honest answer is that the achievable range of plausible purity figures for a given vial is wider than most people expect.
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.
| Component | Typical share | Counted in purity? | Counted in content? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target peptide | 88–94 % | Yes, as main peak | Yes |
| Related impurities | 1–3 % | Yes, as other peaks | No |
| Counter-ion (TFA or acetate) | 2–8 % | No | No |
| Residual water | 2–6 % | No | No |
| Bulking agent, if present | 0–40 % | No | No |
To be exact about it, 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 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.
edited 5 Sept 2024 by marcus_thorbjorn — tightened the wording; no substantive change
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsThe relevant detail is that reporting threshold is convention and not chemistry, which is why two certificates with different thresholds disagree by a tenth of a point or more.
Column pore size affects mass transfer — a 100 Angstrom packing on a 5 kDa peptide restricts diffusion, broadening the peak and potentially hiding small impurities in the shoulders.
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.
Compare purity within a single laboratory on the same method, never across laboratories.
Identity and purity are orthogonal, and a high purity says almost nothing about whether the peak is actually what you think it is.
Gradient slope controls resolution, and gentler slopes resolve co-eluting impurities into separate peaks — so the better method reports the worse purity number.
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.
I would be careful about over-reading a single measurement — treat it as a data point, not as ground truth.
The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.
Area percentage is not mass percentage, and conflating the two is the most common misreading of a purity figure.
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.
If you are ranking vendors, specify a method and have all samples tested at the same place.
The method matters more than the vial, which is why specifying a method buys you far more than changing suppliers does.
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.
Compare purity within a single laboratory on the same method, never across laboratories.
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.