Stated plainly: dulaglutide · 98.8%.
The units are where I keep going wrong, so please be explicit about them.
I have sanity-checked the order of magnitude and it seems right, which is not the same as being right.
Is my approach right even if my number is wrong?
Sum the table and see whether it reaches 1.2 per cent. A 98.8 per cent headline leaves 1.2 per cent of the detected area unaccounted for, and a related-substances table exists to say what that 1.2 per cent is. If the listed peaks add to 0.72 per cent, the missing 0.48 is unassigned area — real signal the laboratory saw and did not name — and that is a finding, not an omission. Check three things in order: does the table report each impurity as area per cent on the same basis as the headline; is there a reporting threshold below which peaks were discarded; and does the largest single impurity have a limit against it. A table whose entries do not close on 1.2 per cent is not wrong, but it is incomplete in a way the headline conceals.
Start from what the detector sees, because that tells you what the number means.
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 gradient slope controls resolution, and gentler slopes resolve co-eluting impurities into separate peaks — so the better method reports the worse purity number.
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 9 Mar 2026 by mz_4113 — removed a claim I could not source
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsThe short answer is that two competent laboratories on identical material will disagree, and the disagreement is almost always explainable by method differences.
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.
On the detail: 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.
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 practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.
The honest answer is that the achievable range of plausible purity figures for a given vial is wider than most people expect.
Mass on column affects detector linearity and peak overlap — overloading broadens peaks and hides neighbours, while underloading improves resolution but loses sensitivity.
Mechanically, 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.
Compare purity within a single laboratory on the same method, never across laboratories.
Concretely, 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.
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 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.
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.