Public COA audit

GLOW · GHK-Cu

Audited September 5, 2026

Mostly consistent, with concerns

Several fields check out, but we found issues worth reviewing before you rely on this document.

Legitimacy
88
Confidence
92%
Panels
2/7
Purity (printed)
99.7%

Scored high because the document is mostly consistent but carries soft concerns, limited panel coverage (2/7), and 2 soft concerns. To improve: include identity, purity, and endotoxin at minimum.

Document details

Fields extracted from the certificate — not order or payment data.

Batch / lot
WL-GLOW-P00520
Identity method
FTIR (USP <197A>)
Sample date
2026-06-08
Issue date
2026-06-12

Original certificate

Embedded copy of the stored COA PDF or image. Download it for your records — PeptIQ’s audit is separate from the lab document itself.

Loading original certificate…

7-panel checklist

Had data + good, had data + bad, reported without pass/fail, or missing. Missing lowers thoroughness — you decide whether that panel matters; PeptIQ’s score still factors coverage.

2 of 7 present · 2 passed · 0 failed · 0 reported · 5 missing

Missing is a thoroughness gap — not automatically bad. PeptIQ’s legitimacy score still weighs panel coverage; you can down-weight panels that don’t matter for your use case.

  • Identity

    Tested · passed · core

    Compound identity confirmed (e.g. HPLC, mass spec).

    FTIR sample spectrum confirms the presence of GLOW with addition of excipient(s)/fillers

  • Purity

    Tested · passed · core

    Reported purity percentage for the analyte.

    99.7%

  • Heavy metals

    Not on this certificate file

    Lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, or similar limits.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

  • Microbial

    Not on this certificate file

    Bioburden / microbial limits testing.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

  • Endotoxin

    Not on this certificate file · core

    LAL or chromogenic endotoxin assay.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

  • Sterility

    Not on this certificate file

    Sterility testing where applicable.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

  • Residual solvent / water

    Not on this certificate file

    Residual solvents or water content limits.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

How to read this

Had data · good

Panel present with a pass (or clear acceptance).

Had data · bad

Panel present with a fail — a concrete quality signal.

Had data · unclear

Value reported without an explicit pass/fail mark.

Missing on this file

Not on this certificate file. Lowers file thoroughness; a sibling endotoxin/purity report for the same lot may still exist. PeptIQ’s score still factors coverage.

Findings

Evidence-linked observations from this audit.

  • High HPLC purity

    99.7% purity meets specification of ≥98% with clear chromatogram showing three distinct peaks

  • FTIR confirmation

    Identity confirmed via FTIR spectroscopy with characteristic peptide bands visible

  • Clear lot identification

    Lot number WL-GLOW-P00520 clearly stated with BT Sample ID 005000040403821

  • Recent testing dates

    Sample tested 2026-06-08, report issued 2026-06-12 (4-day turnaround)

  • Established testing lab

    BTLabs (West Palm Beach, FL) with contact information, website, and QR code verification

  • Limited scope report

    Document explicitly states it does not provide information on particulate matter, microbial contamination or presence of endotoxins. This is a purity/identity-focused report only.

  • Potency below label claim

    Total peptide content 71.6 mg vs labeled 70 mg, but individual components sum to only 65.1% of expected (45.6+12.5+13.4=71.5mg total, not 70mg as labeled)

  • Professional presentation

    Two-page report with proper headers, signatures from two scientists (Andrea Castro and Verna Zheng), supporting chromatograms and spectra

PeptIQ COA reports analyze document content and publicly verifiable lab signals. They are educational and not a guarantee of product quality, legality, or safety. Always consult a qualified professional before making health decisions. We never publish purchase prices, shipping details, or uploader identity.