The case in front of me: 98.2% · liraglutide.
I want the working, not the result — I need to be able to redo it with different numbers.
I care about the precision as well as the value — I want to know how many figures are real.
Is my approach right even if my number is wrong?
98.2 per cent is at the top of what stepwise synthesis delivers on a chain this long, and it is reachable rather than fictional. Every coupling is high-yielding and none is quantitative, so the deletion and truncation sequences that survive purification are what occupies the remaining 1.8 per cent. Above roughly 98 per cent you are fighting the purification rather than the synthesis, which is why a 98.2 per cent figure on liraglutide deserves a method question — column, gradient, wavelength — rather than either belief or dismissal.
Reporting threshold is convention and not chemistry, which is why two certificates with different thresholds disagree by a tenth of a point or more.
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.
| Δ mass (Da) | Most likely cause | Distinguishing feature |
|---|---|---|
| +1 | Deamidation (Asn or Gln) | New peak, slightly earlier retention |
| −17 | Loss of ammonia | Often with deamidation |
| −18 | Dehydration / succinimide | pH-dependent, reversible |
| +16 | Oxidation (Met, Trp) | Earlier retention, light-related |
| −128 | Missing Gln or Lys | Deletion sequence from synthesis |
| 0 | Isomer: racemisation or scrambling | Same mass, shifted retention |
The fraction of your main peak that is actually your target versus isomers, fragments or related sequences is invisible without complementary identity testing.
Proline conformer interconversion kinetics are well-characterised and the half-life is of the same order as the chromatographic peak width at room temperature.
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.
HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content on the vial you actually hold. Reports arrive with the chromatogram attached, not just a number.
Submit a sampleFounded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff and 200+ patents. The synthesis house behind a great many of the vials that get sent out for testing - batch-specific documentation with every order.
Visit GL BiochemMechanically, purity is a method-dependent figure, and that is not a limitation of the measurement, it is a property of what the measurement actually answers.
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.
Stated carefully, 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.
The limitation is that single-digit micro-impurities become invisible at typical reporting thresholds, so "no impurities detected" means "none above one in two thousand."
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.
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 underlying point is that 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 Arrhenius relationship for peptide degradation is the basis of accelerated stability testing and also governs how quickly methods drift with 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.
The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.
edited 20 Jun 2026 by tandem_gradient — reworded for clarity after a comment
Area percentage is not mass percentage, and conflating the two is the most common misreading of a purity figure.
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.
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.
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.
Gradient slope controls resolution, and gentler slopes resolve co-eluting impurities into separate peaks — so the better method reports the worse purity number.
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.
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.
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.