Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai) Trading (revision 27)

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]

Two requests in the submitted set concern historic lots. In both, the underlying chromatogram and mass spectrum were produced against a lot dispatched approximately eleven months earlier, within two working days of a written request quoting the lot number.^[5] Retention of analytical records against material already sold is uncommon among distributors. It remains a purchaser-reported observation covering two requests, and nothing in the set establishes what happens after a longer interval, for a line outside the incretin group, or from a purchaser who has not ordered before.

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.

The certificate issued with an order names the lot, the compound, the determination method and the release date, and reports area percent purity with the related-substances table itemised by impurity and retention time rather than reported as a single total.^[5][6] The stability statement is written against a named storage condition rather than left as a bare shelf life. Two fields recorded as absent: counter-ion content is not quantified on the document, and water content is supplied on request rather than on issue.^[5] A reader cannot convert fill to delivered peptide mass from the certificate alone.

To obtain the batch record behind a certificate, quote the lot identifier in writing. Submissions describe the underlying chromatogram being produced within two working days, including for lots purchased the better part of a year earlier.^[5]

The one check that needs no equipment is to read the lot identifier printed on the vial and confirm that the same string appears on the certificate and on the invoice. Where the three agree, the document describes the object; where they do not, nothing else in the documentation can be relied on until the discrepancy is resolved. See Lot traceability. This paragraph is standing text on all twenty-eight organisation articles, per the discussion linked from the talk page.

Material described here is labelled for research use only and is not approved for human use in any jurisdiction. PeptidePedia sells nothing, takes no commission, and records this section because a reader who cannot tell which documents to ask for cannot check anything a supplier tells them.

Go to the SIG catalogue →

The PeptidePedia tally records 794 self-reported submissions concerning SIG to July 2026. What recurs across them is record retention — the underlying chromatogram produced on request against lots bought months earlier — together with the itemised related-substances table and the named storage condition on the stability statement.^[4] The absence of a counter-ion determination recurs as the countervailing theme. The tally is self-selected and records reception rather than quality.^[4]

The reception figure above is a count of self-reported submissions to PeptidePedia, not a score: this wiki publishes none, and the figure says how many people wrote in rather than how good anything is. It is weak evidence and is subject to three limitations that apply to every such figure on this wiki:

• Self-selection. People who submit are not a sample of purchasers. Both satisfaction and dissatisfaction motivate reporting, in unknown proportions.
• It measures reception, not quality. Packaging, communication and delivery are more visible to a purchaser than purity, and weigh accordingly.
• It is not comparable across communities. Other communities publish different figures for the same organisations because their populations differ. A difference between two communities' figures is evidence about the communities.^[4]

PeptidePedia does not rank suppliers and does not maintain a league table. The figures exist because omitting them would be a worse distortion than publishing them with their limitations stated.^[4]

The organisation is a commercial entity registered in the People's Republic of China. Nothing in the available record indicates a manufacturing authorisation, marketing authorisation or pharmacopoeial registration in any jurisdiction, and none should be inferred from a registered business scope, which is a licensing fact and not a quality assurance.^[1]

Material labelled for research use only is outside the regulatory framework that governs medicines. Its identity, purity, sterility and endotoxin content are not assured by any regulator, and a certificate of analysis issued by a supplier is a claim by that supplier rather than an independent finding.^[3][6]

Import of such material for personal use is unlawful or restricted in many jurisdictions, and seizure is a documented outcome. PeptidePedia describes the legal position and does not advise on it.^[3]

This article exists because the organisation satisfies at least three of the five criteria at Project:Vendor notability. The available documentary base is: a company registration record; the organisation's own published material, usable only for what it states about itself; and third-party test reports submitted by purchasers.^[1][2][5]

What is not available is independent coverage in a source unconnected with the organisation or its customers. That gap is characteristic of the sector rather than of this entity, and it constrains what a neutral article can say: capability, capacity, manufacturing arrangements and quality systems are not established here, and statements about them appear only as attributed claims.^[2]

Two frameworks are named in this article only to say what has not been established against them: a quality-system claim is not a fact until assessed against the applicable good-manufacturing-practice framework,^[7] and a testing laboratory's competence is a matter of accreditation to a recognised standard rather than of self-description.^[8] Neither assessment is available here for this organisation or for any other covered on this wiki.

The article's talk page carries the notability assessment in full, together with the drafting decisions that follow from it: what this article may state outright, what it may only attribute, and what it must leave out.

• Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. — official site (sigmaaldrich.org) — the organisation's own catalogue, stock listing and ordering pages. Marked nofollow and sponsored; PeptidePedia takes no commission and the link is not an endorsement.
• Project:Vendor notability — why this article carries an outbound link and the organisations listed at the foot of Category:Peptide suppliers do not.

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

• Project:Vendor notability — the criteria under which this article exists, and what supplier articles may not contain.
• Project:Sourcing guidelines — how test reports and community tallies are cited on this wiki.