Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.
COA red flags for certificates of analysis — here's what to look for when reviewing a Certificate of Analysis:
- No HPLC data: If there's no chromatography graph, it's not a real COA
- Exact 100% purity: Suspicious — real testing always shows slight variation
- No batch number: Can't trace back to specific production
- No endotoxin testing: For injectables, this is essential
- Template looks like it was made in Word: Professional labs have standardized formats
I have seen fake COAs that are literally photoshopped. Always verify independently if possible.
newstart_MO said:COA red flags for certificates of analysis — here's what to look for when reviewing a Certificate of Analysis: No HPLC data: If there's no…
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
newstart_MO said:COA red flags for certificates of analysis — here's what to look for when reviewing a Certificate of Analysis: No HPLC data: If there's no…
Coming at newstart_MO’s question from a different direction. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?