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 · COA interpretation

Second pass at: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis

Solved
Solved by r.sobczak in post #6
post #5 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Reading old certificates: if a certificate is dated years ago, the lot it describes might be old. That is not automatically a problem but it is worth noting. Fresh testing on the current lot is stronger than old testing on an older lot.

Jump to the accepted answer →

AN
a.nybergTL2 Moderator3 Jul 2024#1

Second pass at: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

A documentation question rather than an analytical one.

I have a certificate in front of me that reports a purity figure, names a technique, gives a wavelength, and stops. No gradient, no column, no injection volume, no chromatogram.

What can I legitimately conclude from that document? My instinct is "almost nothing, but not literally nothing", and I would like to know where the people who read these professionally draw the line.

4 likes 2.1y
TM
t.marchettiTL2 Moderator6 Jul 2024#2

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

Purity and content are different measurements: purity tells you what proportion of the detected material is the intended species. Content tells you how much of the intended species is present in the container. A lyophilised vial can be 99% pure and contain considerably less than the label claims because the remainder is water, counter-ion and excipient.

0 likes 2.1y
P
PWendelboeTL1Member8 Jul 2024#3

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

19 likes 2.1y
CN
c.nybergTL2 Moderator11 Jul 2024#4
a.nyberg, post #1: Second pass at: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a certificate in front of me that reports a purity figure, names a technique, gives a wavelength, and stops. No… Go to post

A certificate of analysis is a statement by its issuer that a defined test was performed on a defined lot and produced a defined result. That is all it is, and it is not nothing. What makes it usable: lot identifier matching the container, test date, method identification specific enough to reproduce, the actual result as a number, and the acceptance criterion stated separately from the result.

8 likes in reply to #1 2y
EA
e.almeidaTL2Member13 Jul 2024#5
c.nyberg, post #4: A certificate of analysis is a statement by its issuer that a defined test was performed on a defined lot and produced a defined result. That is all it is, and it is not nothing. What makes it usable: lot identifier matching the container, test date, method identification specific enough to reproduce, the actual result as a number, and… Go to post

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

What fields matter on a certificate: lot number matching the vial, test date, the analytical method stated specifically, the measured result as a number, and the acceptance limit stated separately. A certificate missing any of these is weaker.

18 likes in reply to #4 2y
RS
r.sobczakTL2 Moderator Solution14 Jul 2024 · edited#6

post #5 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Reading old certificates: if a certificate is dated years ago, the lot it describes might be old. That is not automatically a problem but it is worth noting. Fresh testing on the current lot is stronger than old testing on an older lot.

7 likes 2y
I
IHollingworthTL2Member16 Jul 2024#7

Endotoxin testing is separate: a certificate of purity says nothing about endotoxin. A chemically pure preparation can carry a clinically significant endotoxin load. If endotoxin matters, it needs to be tested and reported.

0 likes 2y
NR
n.ramosTL2 Moderator18 Jul 2024#8

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

0 likes 2y
IS
isotonic_sheetTL3Regular19 Jul 2024#9

On post #5 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

When method identifiers are missing: "reversed-phase HPLC" is less specific than "reversed-phase HPLC at 214 nm on a C18 column with a 10 to 40% acetonitrile gradient over 20 minutes". The second lets someone reproduce the analysis. The first does not.

25 likes 2y
HB
h.brandtTL2 Moderator21 Jul 2024#10

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

11 likes 2y
SL
s.leclercTL4 Moderator23 Jul 2024#11

post #10 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Counter-ion form is crucial: peptides are isolated as salts, most often trifluoroacetate from reversed-phase purification or acetate after salt exchange. The counter-ion is part of the mass in the vial and is not part of the peptide. Two vials of the same purity, one as TFA and one as acetate, contain different amounts of peptide per milligram.

15 likes 2y
NS
n.silvaTL224 Jul 2024#12
MH
ms_hollowayTL4Mass spectrometrist26 Jul 2024#13

Sterility testing is separate: chromatographic purity, mass spectrometry, and endotoxin testing all say nothing about whether a solution is sterile. If sterility matters, it needs to be tested and reported.

1 like 2y
EI
e.iyerTL2 Moderator27 Jul 2024#14

Amino acid analysis gives content: it hydrolyses the peptide and quantifies the residues. It measures the peptide content independent of chromatographic purity. Very few supplier certificates report it.

6 likes 2y
KR
k.radichTL2 Moderator29 Jul 2024#15
h.brandt, post #10: Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up. Go to post

A certificate of analysis is a statement by its issuer that a defined test was performed on a defined lot and produced a defined result. That is all it is, and it is not nothing. What makes it usable: lot identifier matching the container, test date, method identification specific enough to reproduce, the actual result as a number, and the acceptance criterion stated separately from the result.

22 likes in reply to #10 2y
BO
b.oseiTL2 Moderator30 Jul 2024 · edited#16
e.iyer, post #14: Amino acid analysis gives content: it hydrolyses the peptide and quantifies the residues. It measures the peptide content independent of chromatographic purity. Very few supplier certificates report it. Go to post

On post #12 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

0 likes in reply to #14 2y
AR
a.reyesTL4 Admin31 Jul 2024#17
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

Purity and content are different measurements: purity tells you what proportion of the detected material is the intended species. Content tells you how much of the intended species is present in the container. A lyophilised vial can be 99% pure and contain considerably less than the label claims because the remainder is water, counter-ion and excipient.

2 likes 2y
LS
l.salinasTL2 Moderator2 Aug 2024#18

When a document puts the specification in the result column, it has told you the release criterion, not the measurement. Those are different claims and the second is weaker.

10 likes 2y
HO
h.oyelowoTL23 Aug 2024#19
MR
m.radichTL2 Moderator5 Aug 2024#20

Water content (residual moisture) matters: lyophilised peptide is not dry. A few percent water is normal. The difference between a TFA salt and an acetate salt can be several percent. Content calculations need the water content to be accurate.

16 likes 2y
SA
s.achebeTL2 Moderator6 Aug 2024#21

On post #17 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Counter-ion form is crucial: peptides are isolated as salts, most often trifluoroacetate from reversed-phase purification or acetate after salt exchange. The counter-ion is part of the mass in the vial and is not part of the peptide. Two vials of the same purity, one as TFA and one as acetate, contain different amounts of peptide per milligram.

0 likes 2y
V
VThorvaldsenTL3Regular7 Aug 2024#22

post #21 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Amino acid analysis gives content: it hydrolyses the peptide and quantifies the residues. It measures the peptide content independent of chromatographic purity. Very few supplier certificates report it.

18 likes 2y
JH
j.hartmannTL2 Moderator9 Aug 2024#23
e.almeida, post #5: Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together. What fields matter on a certificate: lot number matching the vial, test date, the analytical method stated specifically, the measured result as a number, and the acceptance limit stated separately. A certificate missing any of these is weaker. Go to post

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

7 likes in reply to #5 2y
K
KnowltonTL3Regular10 Aug 2024 · edited#24

Endotoxin testing is separate: a certificate of purity says nothing about endotoxin. A chemically pure preparation can carry a clinically significant endotoxin load. If endotoxin matters, it needs to be tested and reported.

1 like 2y
MA
mi.almeidaTL2 Moderator11 Aug 2024#25

Worth separating two things that post #21 runs together.

Reading old certificates: if a certificate is dated years ago, the lot it describes might be old. That is not automatically a problem but it is worth noting. Fresh testing on the current lot is stronger than old testing on an older lot.

0 likes 2y
SP
s.poulsenTL3Regular12 Aug 2024#26

When method identifiers are missing: "reversed-phase HPLC" is less specific than "reversed-phase HPLC at 214 nm on a C18 column with a 10 to 40% acetonitrile gradient over 20 minutes". The second lets someone reproduce the analysis. The first does not.

24 likes 2y
KA
k.agyemanTL2 Moderator14 Aug 2024#27
n.ramos, post #8: I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological. The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient. Go to post

Sterility testing is separate: chromatographic purity, mass spectrometry, and endotoxin testing all say nothing about whether a solution is sterile. If sterility matters, it needs to be tested and reported.

11 likes in reply to #8 23mo
NT
n.torrenceTL3Regular15 Aug 2024#28
t.marchetti, post #2: the opening post answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Purity and content are different measurements: purity tells you what proportion of the detected material is the intended species. Content tells you how much of the intended species is present in the container. A lyophilised vial can be 99% pure and… Go to post

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

3 likes in reply to #2 23mo
NS
ni.stanescuTL2 Moderator16 Aug 2024#29

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.

0 likes 23mo
JH
j.habermannTL3Regular17 Aug 2024#30
VThorvaldsen, post #22: post #21 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Amino acid analysis gives content: it hydrolyses the peptide and quantifies the residues. It measures the peptide content independent of chromatographic purity. Very few supplier certificates report it. Go to post

What fields matter on a certificate: lot number matching the vial, test date, the analytical method stated specifically, the measured result as a number, and the acceptance limit stated separately. A certificate missing any of these is weaker.

33 likes in reply to #22 23mo