Subject: Sterility Testing vs. Bioburden Testing — These Are Not the Same Thing
From: Derek from Peptide Price <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 18:28:13 +0000
List-Id: <derekpruski.substack.com>

View this post on the web at https://derekpruski.substack.com/p/sterility-testing-vs-bioburden-testing

And a lot of vendors are getting this wrong.
This is one of the most important quality topics in the research peptide space right now, and it’s being misrepresented badly — by vendors, and in some cases by the labs themselves.
I’ll be upfront: I just learned the full context of this a couple of days ago. That’s the nature of this space. We’re always uncovering something new, and when we do, the standard has to move with it. That’s what this post is about.
What is USP 71 Sterility Testing?
USP 71 is the gold standard for testing whether a sterile research product is free of viable microorganisms. It requires 14–18 days to complete — no exceptions, no shortcuts. That timeline isn’t arbitrary. The test must incubate long enough to allow slow-growing organisms to become detectable. Cut the timeline short and you’re not running the test, you’re running something else.
Any lab claiming a sterility result in less than 14 days is not doing USP 71.
What is USP 61 Bioburden Testing?
USP 61 is a microbial limits test designed for non-sterile products — think medical devices, topicals, and products designed for external applications. It does identify bacteria and fungi, and it returns results faster than USP 71.
But that speed comes with a critical tradeoff: it is not validated for sterile research products. It was built for products that don’t need to be sterile in the first place.
It is not a sterility test. It was never designed to be one.
The Problem: Some Labs Are Calling It Sterility
This is where it gets concerning.
We’ve been seeing USP 61 Bioburden results appearing on COAs under the label “sterility test” with increasing frequency. Some labs are generating the paperwork that way. Some vendors are passing it along without questioning it — or worse, knowing exactly what it is.
This is a serious misclassification.
If a research product is marketed as sterile, the only test that validates that claim is USP 71. A bioburden test does not confirm sterility. It was not designed to. Presenting it as such is misleading at best — and a genuine risk to the integrity of the RUO space at worst.
Why This Matters
Labs that conduct rigorous USP 71 testing across multiple vials per batch consistently find that a meaningful percentage of research products fail — non-sterile vials slipping through batches that likely cleared a bioburden screen without issue. The bioburden test isn’t catching these failures because it isn’t designed to. That’s the gap.
USP 71 — Sterility Test
Designed for sterile research products
14–18 day minimum turnaround — cannot be shortened
Detects bacteria and fungi
The only accepted test to validate sterility
Referenced under USP 71
USP 61 — Bioburden / Microbial Limits Test
Designed for non-sterile products, topicals, and medical devices
Faster turnaround than USP 71
Detects bacteria and fungi
Does not validate sterility
Referenced under USP 61
Not a substitute for USP 71 on sterile research products
What to Look For on a COA
When reviewing a COA for any sterile research compound, check:
Does it specifically reference sterility or bioburden — and which USP standard?
Is there a completion date that reflects the 14–18 day window?
Is the issuing lab accredited and independent?
If the sterility section says USP 61, Bioburden, or anything other than USP 71 — it is not a sterility test. Push for the real test. A vendor confident in their quality standards won’t have a problem with that question.
A Note from Me
We learn more about this space every day. I didn’t know the full difference between these two tests until recently, and I think most people in this community — researchers and vendors alike — don’t either. That’s not an excuse for misrepresentation, but it is a reason to keep sharing what we learn.
As a result of digging into this, I’ll be updating PeptidePrice.store today to separate bioburden and sterility into two distinct sections so you can filter vendors by the correct test type.
The RUO community has made real progress on third-party testing standards. Misrepresenting bioburden as sterility quietly erodes that. The more people who understand the difference, the harder it is for the wrong standard to fly under the radar.
All research compounds are for research use only and not for human consumption.

Unsubscribe https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9kZXJla3BydXNraS5zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vYWN0aW9uL2Rpc2FibGVfZW1haWw_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpveU56TTJNakl6T1Rnc0luQnZjM1JmYVdRaU9qRTVNakF4TWpFMU9Dd2lhV0YwSWpveE56YzBNemMyT1RBMUxDSmxlSEFpT2pFNE1EVTVNVEk1TURVc0ltbHpjeUk2SW5CMVlpMHpNelkxTXpZM0lpd2ljM1ZpSWpvaVpHbHpZV0pzWlY5bGJXRnBiQ0o5LlQxU1dBejRmNERxOGZjVUpwc19idjVFdGt4NEhjckZWQWtlck8tTEVhNEkiLCJwIjoxOTIwMTIxNTgsInMiOjMzNjUzNjcsImYiOnRydWUsInUiOjI3MzYyMjM5OCwiaWF0IjoxNzc0Mzc2OTA1LCJleHAiOjIwODk5NTI5MDUsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wIiwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.m5SeHztvRhCQfF483iXAITpKPXNUaDkFYpoVnGpVoNc?