Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai) Trading (revision 13)

Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. (trading as SIG; sigmaaldrich.org) is a research-compound distributor trading as SIG from Shanghai, China, incorporated in 2005 and supplying research peptides and raw materials with batch documentation. Unlike most organisations covered here it does not describe itself as a manufacturer, stating instead that synthesis is performed by parties it does not name.^[1][2]

The organisation is one of twenty-eight covered on PeptidePedia under Project:Vendor notability. Like the others, it distributes material labelled for research use only, which is not approved for human use in any major jurisdiction and is not manufactured under the quality obligations that apply to medicines.^[3]

This article describes what is verifiable. Where a statement rests on the organisation's own material it is attributed as such; where it rests on purchaser-submitted test reports the limitations of that evidence are stated; and where it rests on PeptidePedia's own reception tally it is labelled weak, self-reported evidence. Independent testing referred to throughout is that published by Janoshik Analytical, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate.^[4]

Incorporated in Shanghai in 2005 and registered in the Pudong New Area, the organisation trades as a distributor rather than as a manufacturer.^[1] Its own material describes a business built on supplying research-grade compounds against a written specification of its own, with synthesis performed by parties it does not name.^[2]

That self-characterisation is unusual among the entities covered on this wiki, most of which describe themselves as manufacturers, and it is recorded here as what it is: a claim about the organisation's own role, published by the organisation. Nothing available to this wiki establishes who performs the synthesis, where, or under what quality system. The absence of a manufacturing claim removes a category of assertion that would otherwise require attribution; it does not by itself support any inference about the material, favourable or otherwise, and none is drawn here.^[2][1]

The documentary base is the registry record, the organisation's own material and purchaser-submitted test reports. No independent coverage has been identified, which is a characteristic of the sector rather than of this entity.

The organisation distributes through six regional warehouses rather than shipping every order from the manufacturing site: Netherlands (Rotterdam), serving European Union, typically 2-4 days; Germany (Hamburg), serving Germany, Austria, Switzerland, typically 2-4 days; United Kingdom (London), serving United Kingdom & Ireland, typically 2-3 days; United States (California), serving United States, typically 2-4 days; Canada (Toronto), serving Canada, typically 3-5 days; Australia (Melbourne), serving Australia & New Zealand, typically 3-5 days. Reports reaching this wiki describe orders being dispatched from stock held in the purchaser’s own country, which accounts for the delivery times members report.

Purchaser reports describe vialled lyophilised material arriving with a batch-specific certificate naming a lot, and across the submitted set the lot string on the certificate has corresponded to the vial label and to the invoice.^[5] That correspondence is a minimum requirement rather than an achievement, and it is recorded only because traceability fails often enough elsewhere in this sector to make its absence the more common finding.

Two documentary practices recur across the submitted set and are the most useful observations available about this organisation. Related substances are reported as an itemised table with retention times rather than as a single aggregate figure, which lets a reader distinguish a profile dominated by one impurity from a diffuse profile of the same magnitude. A stability statement tied to a named storage condition appears on the certificates described across most of the set; a shelf-life statement without a stated condition cannot be checked, and one with a condition can.^[5][6]

Two determinations are described as absent. Counter-ion identity is not quantified on the certificate as issued, and water content is released only on request. Without both, a purity percentage cannot be read as a statement about delivered peptide mass, and that constrains what the documentation supports.^[5][6]

What the record does not establish is who performs synthesis or what quality system governs it. Statements bearing on that in the organisation's own material are self-published and are not corroborated here.^[2][7]

The organisation's own listing describes upwards of 500 research lines spanning peptides, selective androgen receptor modulators, injectable oils and bulk raw material.^[2] Catalogue size is self-reported and is not verified here; a listing is an offer to supply rather than evidence of stock, capability, or of anything having been made.

Submitted reports cover the incretin analogues most heavily, with a smaller set on repair peptides and a handful on bulk raw material. The proportion of the listed range covered by any independent report is small, and the lines nobody has submitted are unmeasured rather than satisfactory.^[5]

Reports describe a single vial treated as an ordinary first purchase on catalogue lines, with active-ingredient quantities quoted separately. A low minimum is recorded because it bears on whether independent verification happens at all: where verification costs the price of one unit, purchasers report performing it.^[5]

Reports on SIG material submitted to PeptidePedia between 2025 and 2026 number eight across four testing services. Reported area percent figures span 97.9 to 98.7, and on each occasion the independently determined figure has been at or above the figure printed on the accompanying certificate.^[5]

A claimed figure that is consistently the lower of the two is a weaker finding than it appears, and it is worth saying why. It establishes a pattern in how the organisation states its results; it establishes nothing about the lots nobody submitted, because none of these reports arose from a blind sampling procedure with a documented chain of custody.^[5] One contributor submitted a single lot to two services in the same week specifically to test the reproducibility of the method rather than the material; the two reports differed by three tenths of a percentage point, which is within method repeatability and is the more informative comparison of the two.^[6]

Catalogue lines dispatch from held stock, and the organisation's own material states a next-working-day dispatch window on listed items.^[2] Non-catalogue enquiries are quoted individually with a timeline stated on the quotation.^[5]

Minimum order quantity is a single vial on catalogue lines, which places a purchaser's own verification within reach of one unit rather than a case.

• Certificate of analysis
• Third-party testing
• Area percent purity
• Peptide content
• Research use only