What I am working with: 99.4% · cagrilintide · HJ.
I am trying to build something sustainable rather than something thorough that I will abandon.
I have already decided the broad direction; this is about the specifics.
What would you do, and what would make you change course?
99.4 per cent purity with no content figure leaves the milligram number unmeasured. Purity says 99.4 of every 100 units of detected area is cagrilintide and 0.6 is something else. Content says how many milligrams are in the glass. The two do not constrain each other: a vial can be 99.4 per cent pure and still be under label, because water and counter-ion are part of the gross mass and neither shows up as an impurity peak. If you buy one test, buy the one that changes your arithmetic.
Read the chromatogram before you read the number, because the number without the trace is not a measurement, it is a claim.
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.
| 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 |
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.
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.
edited 29 Jan 2025 by Dr_Ingrid_Baumgartner — added the citation requested in comments
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsStart from what the detector sees, because that tells you what the number means.
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.
On the detail: 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.
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.
edited 28 Feb 2025 by RP_C18 — clarified the distinction between purity and content
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.
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.
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 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.
The underlying point is that understanding purity requires separating the chemistry from the method from the reporting convention, and the three are not independent.
Mass on column affects detector linearity and peak overlap — overloading broadens peaks and hides neighbours, while underloading improves resolution but loses sensitivity.
Worth noting that method standardisation is poor in the research-grade space compared to pharmaceutical work, so identical-looking methods can produce different results.
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 relevant detail is that 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.
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.
The ICH Q3A impurity thresholds and the relevant pharmacopoeial chapters all specify method validation requirements that almost no research-grade certificate claims to meet.
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.