The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Analytics · HPLC & UHPLC

[2026 update] Why 99.2% and 97.8% on the same lot can both be correct

Solved
Solved by d.szymanski in post #4
Reversed-phase separates on hydrophobicity. A peptide is retained on a non-polar stationary phase and eluted by increasing organic solvent. For peptides the mobile phase almost always contains an ion-pairing acid, typically 0.1% TFA, which suppresses secondary interactions and sharpens peaks.

Jump to the accepted answer →

B
BramleyTL2Member30 Apr 2026#1

Why 99.2% and 97.8% on the same lot can both be correct — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.

I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it anywhere.

A Medutest report on a tirzepatide lot gives 98.4% purity. The supplier certificate for the same lot states 98.2%. Both documents name a reversed-phase method; neither states the same gradient.

My question is not "who is right". It is: given that those two figures were produced by different methods, what is the largest difference I should expect from method alone, and at what point does a gap stop being explainable that way?

13 likes 3mo
BW
bac_waterTL2Regular25 May 2026#2

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

Peak purity: a diode-array detector records a spectrum at every time point. If a peak contains two co-eluting species with different spectra, the spectrum changes across the peak. A passing peak-purity result says the spectrum is constant; it is weak evidence of homogeneity if the impurities have similar spectra.

17 likes 2mo
SZ
s.zamoraTL2 Moderator11 Jun 2026#3

Gradient slope is the single biggest driver of apparent purity differences. A shallower gradient over a longer run resolves more impurities and gives a higher purity figure. A steep gradient produces a tidier-looking chromatogram with fewer visible peaks and gives a lower purity figure. Both are legitimate methods and they will not produce the same number.

0 likes 2mo
DS
d.szymanskiTL3Wiki editor Solution27 Jun 2026 · edited#4

Reversed-phase separates on hydrophobicity. A peptide is retained on a non-polar stationary phase and eluted by increasing organic solvent. For peptides the mobile phase almost always contains an ion-pairing acid, typically 0.1% TFA, which suppresses secondary interactions and sharpens peaks.

8 likes 30d
TD
t.duarteTL2 Moderator12 Jul 2026#5

post #4 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Column chemistry and particle size: smaller particles (1.7 μm) give better resolution and higher efficiency than larger particles (3.5 μm or 5 μm), at the cost of higher back pressure. Newer methods increasingly use smaller particles.

11 likes 16d
EF
e.ferreiraTL3Regular26 Jul 2026#6

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

24 likes 2d

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Follow-up: Comparing two chromatograms from different laboratories, properly
Comparing two chromatograms from different laboratories, properly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it…
MMSSNCEFGA+62 67 12k 9h
Area percent versus weight percent: the confusion that causes most arguments
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Area percent versus weight percent: the confusion that causes most arguments Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting the method first, because I know…
ADSVCDFNAD+10 14 2.1k 2mo
Shoulders, tangent skims, and defensible integration — the long version
Shoulders, tangent skims, and defensible integration — the long version Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting the method first, because I know what the…
VSCBAWSLEL+16 20 27k 3mo
Revisiting: Theoretical plates: useful number or ritual?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Revisiting: Theoretical plates: useful number or ritual? I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it anywhere. A…
OLNANRKKCW+16 21 1.2k 1d
Revisiting: Why I ask for the gradient before I discuss the number
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Why I ask for the gradient before I discuss the number Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to understand what this number means…
DNIDGHECFA+15 19 43k 10mo

Related topics — sharing the tags UV & DAD detection, system suitability, peak integration

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Impurity thresholds: where the common numbers come from
Impurity thresholds: where the common numbers come from — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a certificate in…
MRDNLAPOBP+11 15 825 2d
Detection wavelength and why 214 nm and 280 nm disagree
On the subject in the title: Detection wavelength and why 214 nm and 280 nm disagree Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three replies will…
BWZVGFFEDI+78 84 1.7k 8mo
Deamidation and the close-eluting pair it produces
Deamidation and the close-eluting pair it produces Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it…
IARMASPKA+33 37 46k 15mo
Revisiting: Sample size in a voluntary survey: the selection problem
Revisiting: Sample size in a voluntary survey: the selection problem — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three replies…
RAZAR 2 56k 9mo
Area percent versus weight percent: the confusion that causes most arguments
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Area percent versus weight percent: the confusion that causes most arguments Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting the method first, because I know…
ADSVCDFNAD+10 14 2.1k 2mo