How do I reconcile 97.9% from Medutest with 98.8% from the supplier?

Stated plainly: 97.9% · Medutest · 98.8%.

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?

0.9 percentage points, and the direction is the informative half. Medutest reports 97.9 per cent and the certificate 98.8, so the independent figure is lower. As impurity that is 2.1 per cent against 1.2 — 1.75 times as much unassigned area. A gentler gradient resolves impurities that a steeper one hides beneath the main peak, so the better method routinely reports the worse number; 0.9 points is comfortably inside what method choice alone produces on identical material. Ask both parties for the method section before you decide which figure is wrong, because the answer is often neither.

The honest answer is that the achievable range of plausible purity figures for a given vial is wider than most people expect.

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.

Worth being precise here: 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.

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.

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.

Stated carefully, mass on column affects detector linearity and peak overlap — overloading broadens peaks and hides neighbours, while underloading improves resolution but loses sensitivity.

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.

Understanding purity requires separating the chemistry from the method from the reporting convention, and the three are not independent.

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.

Worth being precise here: 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.

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

Gradient slope is the most powerful parameter and almost nobody mentions it, which is why two reports on the same material disagree by a point.

Gradient slope controls resolution, and gentler slopes resolve co-eluting impurities into separate peaks — so the better method reports the worse purity number.

I would be careful about over-reading a single measurement — treat it as a data point, not as ground truth.

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.

edited 6 Apr 2026 by ilaria_bertone — corrected a unit error in the worked example

On the detail: the method matters more than the vial, which is why specifying a method buys you far more than changing suppliers does.

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.

Worth noting that method standardisation is poor in the research-grade space compared to pharmaceutical work, so identical-looking methods can produce different results.

In practice: ask for the chromatogram, check the method section, check the lot number against the vial, and set your accept threshold before you see the result rather than after.