Stated plainly: Janoshik · 97.9%.
I noticed this today and I have not touched anything since, in case the state is diagnostic.
I have not discarded anything yet, so a test is still possible if that is the recommendation.
How do I distinguish the benign explanation from the one that matters?
To be exact about it, 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.
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.
The underlying point is that 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.
The ICH Q3A impurity thresholds and the relevant pharmacopoeial chapters all specify method validation requirements that almost no research-grade certificate claims to meet.
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.
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsSpecifically, 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.
The relevant detail is that integration of the shoulder — whether you use perpendicular drop or tangent skim — determines what area gets assigned to the main peak versus the impurity table.
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 short answer is that two competent laboratories on identical material will disagree, and the disagreement is almost always explainable by method differences.
The fraction of your main peak that is actually your target versus isomers, fragments or related sequences is invisible without complementary identity testing.
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.
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.
The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.
edited 9 Aug 2024 by sinead_gaffney — removed a claim I could not source
Understanding purity requires separating the chemistry from the method from the reporting convention, and the three are not independent.
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.
I would be careful about over-reading a single measurement — treat it as a data point, not as ground truth.
Compare purity within a single laboratory on the same method, never across laboratories.
edited 8 Oct 2024 by area_percent — updated for the 2026 guidance change
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.
If you are ranking vendors, specify a method and have all samples tested at the same place.
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.