Why does everyone blindly trust third party testing without looking at the lab name

Posted by vialfiles in Vendor Reviews and Sourcing

I have been going through recent source discussions and I keep seeing people post certificates of analysis like they are holy scripture. Nobody seems to check who actually ran the high performance liquid chromatography or whether the testing facility is even legitimate. We are talking about compounds meant strictly for laboratory subjects yet people treat a sketchy PDF file as absolute proof of purity. It feels like massive confirmation bias because everyone wants their favorite supplier to be clean. When you actually look closely at some of these reports the batch numbers do not even match the vial labels. Am I the only one who thinks this whole system of trusting random vendor paperwork is completely broken right now?

9 Comments

amberfiles

Spot on analysis. Most people just see a big percentage number at the bottom and completely ignore the methodology section.

researchguy4

So what is the actual solution here? Just stop buying altogether until regulations change or rely entirely on crowd sourced group testing?

vialfiles

Mostly vague formatting and sometimes completely blank header info where the testing facility name should be.

protocol88

Do those independent groups actually make their raw data public or do they just post summaries?

protocol21

This is why independent mass spec testing groups are starting to pop up on forums. You literally cannot trust the vendor provided sheets anymore.

stackgal27

Even with raw data available most researchers lack the analytical chemistry background to interpret retention times correctly.

assayhead

They usually drop the full chromatogram if you know where to look. Always look for the raw data files.

grayowl0

True. It is easy to hide impurities if you manipulate the gradient elution parameters during the run.

biohackguy72

Are there specific labs you have noticed faking reports or is it mostly just vague formatting issues?