Testing laboratory · Reviewed 2026-09-03
Analytical Formulations Inc. · Windcrest, Texas, USA
Legitimacy review
Analytical Formulations is a legitimate, long-running Texas testing business with transparent pricing and recurring peptide reports. Readers must understand that sampled peptide certificates report UV/Vis spectrum correlation rather than chromatographic HPLC peak-area purity.
Analytical Formulations Inc. says it was founded in 2008 and operates at 8940 Fourwinds Drive, Suite 107, Windcrest, Texas. A BBB directory record identifies John Dunlop as CEO and traces the corporation to March 11, 2008, but a current primary Texas filing and first-party leadership biography were not obtained.
Operating address, stated 2008 history, public pricing, live report system, sample workflow, and repeat independent purchases.
Official materials use general accreditation language but did not expose an accreditor, certificate number, legal-entity match, site, or method scope.
AFI's FAQ identifies FT-IR for qualitative fingerprinting and UV-Vis, including derivative spectroscopy, for quantitative work. Its peptide-services marketing also lists mass spectrometry and sequence verification, but those claims were not reconciled with the FAQ or the sampled peptide reports. Current pricing lists five-to-seven-business-day standard turnaround; a separate service page says three to five days.
PeptideCritic has repeatedly purchased AFI testing, supporting real service delivery, but reports that examined peptide COAs used UV/Vis correlation methods despite broader HPLC/MS marketing.
Accreditation is unverified, scientific leadership is not publicly named, and the relationship between advertised mass-spectrometry capability and the UV/Vis peptide certificates needs clarification. Advertised instrument capability does not establish which method was used on a specific report, and UV/Vis spectrum correlation is not interchangeable with HPLC peak-area purity.
Analytical Formulations Inc. describes a San Antonio-area operation founded in 2008 at 8940 Fourwinds Drive, Suite 107, Windcrest. A BBB directory record also dates the corporation to March 11, 2008 and names John Dunlop as CEO, although BBB does not independently verify every submitted fact and no current primary Texas filing was obtained in this review.
The official site describes a small team and an unnamed chief scientific officer with more than 25 years of quality-control experience. The operating history is unusually long for this niche, but accountable technical leadership remains less transparent than the company age and service record.
AFI's FAQ identifies FT-IR as its qualitative fingerprint technique and UV-Vis from 200 to 800 nm, including derivative spectroscopy, as its quantitative technique. Reviewed peptide certificates use a Jenway 6715 UV/Vis spectrophotometer, a Lambda Max identity check, a correlation coefficient reported as percent purity, and Beer-Lambert calculations for quantity.
That reported purity is a spectrum-correlation result, not chromatographic HPLC peak-area purity. A 99.x% AFI result therefore should not be compared directly with a 99.x% HPLC result without explaining that the methods measure different things. AFI's peptide marketing also lists mass spectrometry and sequence verification, but sampled reports and the FAQ did not establish when those methods are used.
AFI publishes a current price menu: finished-goods identity, purity, and assay at $265; raw-material identity at $150; and raw-material identity plus purity at $190, with separate sterility, heavy-metals, blend, blind-test, and rush charges. Its pricing page states five to seven business days, while a peptide service page says three to five days, so the transaction-specific pricing page is the safer current reference.
The site claims chain of custody, calibration verification, dual peer review, transparency, traceability, and accreditation. No current ISO/IEC 17025 accreditor certificate naming AFI, its facility, and a method scope was located. The accurate wording is that no current formal certificate and scope was found—not a categorical claim that the laboratory has never held any credential.
Independent directories and PeptideCritic show recurring AFI use. A May 2026 multi-lab exercise found close agreement between two AFI quantity measurements, but it used different vials, different laboratory methods, and no certified ground truth; it supports repeatability in that sample set, not an accuracy conclusion. A separate case included an AFI failed or inconclusive result, undercutting a simplistic claim that the lab publishes only passing outcomes.
A 2026 PeptideCritic article alleged that Purity Analytics reused AFI data without permission. No public first-party AFI statement confirming that history was found, so the allegation remains dated and unresolved. Current AFI record links and any Purity Analytics signature should be treated as separate evidence layers: the first concerns the performing laboratory's report, while the second concerns document signing and publication.
COA verification
Retain an exact issuer-hosted result URL when one is present; otherwise use the lab’s account or contact process.
Result handling
Verify only when the official issuer record exactly matches the certificate identity.
An explicit official no-record response is unresolved evidence, not proof that the certificate is invalid.
Quarantine the record when the identifier resolves to materially different issuer metadata; do not promote it.
Treat a CAPTCHA, login, timeout, outage, private record, or other portal failure as unknown.
Retain the certificate as document-only evidence and use the issuer contact route without claiming verification.
Keep the record unresolved until an exact issuer result or documented issuer confirmation is available.
Certificate structure
Preserve all pages; 25 of 32 retained reports are multi-page and the largest has four pages.
Do not merge purity, quantity, identity, or safety panels; 23 retained records contain multiple panels.
Evidence boundaries
Review receipts
Public search record
Official company pages dominate a sparse review landscape. Third-party directory profiles provide context but do not verify individual reports.
Sources
Reusable integration rule: Treat exact issuer-hosted files as origin evidence, retain the entire opaque URL, and keep issuer lookup status unresolved without an independent index or response.
Frequently asked questions
Qualified yes. Analytical Formulations is a legitimate, long-running Texas testing business with transparent pricing and recurring peptide reports. Readers must understand that sampled peptide certificates report UV/Vis spectrum correlation rather than chromatographic HPLC peak-area purity.
AFI's FAQ identifies FT-IR for qualitative fingerprinting and UV-Vis, including derivative spectroscopy, for quantitative work. Its peptide-services marketing also lists mass spectrometry and sequence verification, but those claims were not reconciled with the FAQ or the sampled peptide reports. Current pricing lists five-to-seven-business-day standard turnaround; a separate service page says three to five days.
No accreditation certificate confirmed. Official materials use general accreditation language but did not expose an accreditor, certificate number, legal-entity match, site, or method scope.
Retain an exact issuer-hosted result URL when one is present; otherwise use the lab’s account or contact process.
The reviewed sources did not establish that vendors can purchase a passing result from Analytical Formulations Inc.. That is not an audited independence guarantee: sample selection, who pays, publication rights, blind-testing controls, and correction history still matter.
Neither the certificate nor its portal proves custody of the physical vial a buyer receives.
Treat a CAPTCHA, login, timeout, outage, private record, or other portal failure as unknown.
Check the document
