On this page
How can you tell what a BPC-157 COA actually covers?
Match three things: the product format, the lot number and the test performed. A certificate of analysis is a record of specified tests on a sample. Its headline purity figure cannot answer every question about the finished product.
The two original BPC-157 reports here cover a 10 mg vial and 500 mcg capsules. Both name PrymaLab's in-house laboratory. They are not independent third-party reports, and their results apply to the identified lots and tested samples.1, 2
Use the downloads to inspect the actual numbers, then check the explanations below for content assays, device coverage and the inconsistencies within the documents.
Where are the vial and capsule certificates?
Each link opens the complete two-page PDF, including its analytical details. The files are unchanged originals. Their reported purity figures are reproduced below; the results review identifies discrepancies that remain for the issuing laboratory to clarify.
BPC-157 Vial · 10 mg
In-house report. The document does not display a separate assay measuring the 10 mg vial content.
BPC-157 Capsules · 500 mcg
In-house report. A composite of six capsules gives an average content result of 494.7 mcg per capsule.
Which product does each document cover?
The vial and capsules have separate batch reports. The pen and nasal spray need documentation for their own finished formulation.
The vial and capsule have separate in-house batch reports. Those documents do not certify the finished pen or spray.
What results appear in the two BPC-157 reports?
| Attribute | Vial lot PL-2609-010 | Capsule lot PL-2609-012 |
|---|---|---|
| Appearance | White lyophilized powder | Intact capsules; white to off-white powder |
| LC-MS observed mass | 1419.8 Da | 1419.8 Da |
| RP-HPLC area purity | 99.74% | 99.62% |
| Content measurement | 10 mg is the label claim; no separate content assay displayed | 494.7 mcg/capsule average from six capsules combined; reported as 99.0% of label |
| Water by Karl Fischer | 1.7% | 2.1% |
| Endotoxin by kinetic LAL | 0.05 EU/mg | 0.05 EU/mg |
| Sterility/bioburden result as reported | No growth; conforms | No growth; conforms |
Both documents name USP <71> membrane filtration and a 14-day no-growth specification for the microbiology test. That is a separate reported result; it is not derived from the HPLC percentage.
Which document inconsistencies need clarification?
Vial: the summary associates the largest impurity, 0.11%, with 5.38 minutes. The chromatogram and peak table instead associate 0.11% with 3.94 minutes and 0.09% with 5.38 minutes.
Capsules: the four printed peak areas total 4,290,000, while the printed total row gives 4,300,000. The reported 99.62% purity agrees with the summed areas, not the printed total. The original files remain intact; neither discrepancy has been silently corrected.
Why are purity, peptide amount and identity different questions?
HPLC area purity describes the relative areas of measured peaks. In these reports, it is the main peak's area divided by the total integrated area. It does not independently establish how many milligrams were placed in the vial. Multiplying 10 mg by 99.74% would therefore not produce a verified content result.1
A content assay estimates the peptide quantity in the tested sample. The capsule result is a six-capsule composite average of 494.7 mcg per capsule. It does not reveal the highest, lowest or individual capsule amounts. Page two mentions a content-and-uniformity report, but displays no individual measurements or uniformity acceptance result. ICH guidance treats content and dosage-unit uniformity as separate quality attributes.2, 3
The LC-MS identity result concerns molecular mass. Both reports give 1419.8 Da observed against 1419.6 Da theoretical, within their stated ±1.0 Da limit. The sequence and formula are literature-reference values. None of these tests measures human absorption, treatment benefit or clinical safety.
Can a peptide-powder COA certify a filled pen or nasal spray?
The document needs to match the material and stage being tested. Testing an input peptide does not establish the properties of a later filled device. The reviewed pen and spray records refer to peptide-lot testing; no matching finished-device COA was publicly linked.9
| Product | Documentation here | What still needs separate evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 10 mg vial | Lot PL-2609-010 COA | Vial-content assay and stability after preparation |
| 60 × 500 mcg capsules | Lot PL-2609-012 COA with composite content result | Individual capsule uniformity and human absorption |
| 15 mg pen in 3 mL | Published specifications; no reviewed finished-pen COA | Measured liquid concentration, delivery per setting and finished-device microbiology |
| 30 mg spray, 150 mcg per spray | Original label and SDS; no reviewed finished-spray COA | Measured delivery, usable spray count and finished-device microbiology |
For nasal products, FDA quality guidance evaluates formulation and device performance together, including delivered content and spray uniformity. It provides a useful description of the testing questions; it does not certify or approve this BPC-157 spray.4
What should you check when a product arrives with a COA?
- Read the lot on the actual container. A matching product name alone does not connect a different batch to these results.
- Compare the format and strength. A report for capsules or powder does not authenticate a pen or spray.
- Open every page. Review the certificate number, dates, sample details, test methods and numerical results. Both BPC-157 originals here were issued October 3, 2026.
- Identify the testing laboratory. These reports explicitly name in-house testing and do not attach outside laboratory reports.
- Ask about missing or conflicting information. Request clarification and underlying records when the summary, table or totals disagree.
Sharing a PDF makes the document inspectable; it does not independently authenticate the laboratory work behind it. In-house results can supply batch information, while laboratory independence and verification of the underlying data remain separate questions.1, 2
What can an SDS tell you about storage and expiry?
An SDS organizes chemical hazard and handling information. OSHA places handling and storage in Section 7. It serves a different purpose from a batch certificate, and its hazard classification is not a conclusion about therapeutic safety.7
| Document | Recorded conditions | Missing duration information |
|---|---|---|
| Powder SDS · PL-SDS-019 | Sealed powder: −20°C, dry and light-protected. Prepared solution: 2–8°C and light-protected. | The prepared-solution period is to be established by the laboratory; no universal post-mixing number of days is given. |
| Spray SDS · PL-SDS-021 | 2–8°C, upright, capped and light-protected; do not freeze. | No fixed after-opening expiry or confirmation of actual fill volume is supplied. |
The issuer prints September 17, 2028 as the vial retest/expiry date and September 16, 2028 for the capsules. Capsule storage is 20–25°C, dark and dry. Those dates do not establish a new shelf life after opening, transferring or reconstituting the product.1, 2
Use the preparation guide and spray storage guide for the relevant product details. The COA's analytical diluent and 0.5 mg/mL sample concentration describe the laboratory measurement, not a consumer preparation protocol.1, 5, 6
Which certificate belongs to the Wolverine vial?
The Wolverine powder vial has its own lot PL-2609-011 and certificate PL-26-00011. Its 20 mg combined contents comprise 10 mg BPC-157 and 10 mg TB-500. The report gives 99.65% combined HPLC area purity across the two component peaks.8
This is another in-house report for the identified vial lot. It does not certify the finished Wolverine pen. Open the original Wolverine certificate and the blend-specific testing explanation to check its scope.
Which reports and quality references are used here?
- Original BPC-157 10 mg vial COA · PL-26-00010Lot PL-2609-010; two pages; issuer-reported identity, purity, water, endotoxin and microbiology. Includes the noted impurity-retention-time discrepancy.
- Original BPC-157 capsule COA · PL-26-00012Lot PL-2609-012; two pages; six-capsule composite assay and other reported tests. Includes the noted peak-area-total discrepancy.
- ICH Q6A · Specifications, test procedures and acceptance criteriaGeneral quality concepts: identification, content assay, impurities and dosage-unit uniformity are distinct attributes.
- FDA · Nasal spray and inhalation product quality guidanceFormulation/device performance, pump delivery and spray-content uniformity; not a BPC-157 product approval.
- Original BPC-157 powder SDS · PL-SDS-019Revision 1.0, October 3, 2026; Section 7 laboratory handling and storage.
- Original BPC-157 spray SDS · PL-SDS-021Revision 1.0, October 3, 2026; Section 7 handling and storage. Nominal volume in hazard calculations does not verify the bottle's actual fill.
- OSHA · Hazard Communication Safety Data SheetsExplains the purpose and contents of an SDS.
- Original Wolverine 10 mg + 10 mg vial COA · PL-26-00011Lot PL-2609-011; blend-specific in-house results.
- Featured pen specifications and nasal spray specification recordOriginal labels and product documentation reviewed November 2, 2026. No matching finished-pen or finished-spray COA was publicly linked in the reviewed records.