A grant materials appendix is read by people who will never stand at the bench. They are looking for traceability: where an item came from, what documentation supports it, how it will be stored, and whether the request is proportionate to the study described. That makes the appendix a documentation exercise as much as a budgeting one. The most reliable route is a two-stage workflow — treat the all-peptides listing as a provisional shortlist, then open the individual Certificate of Analysis (CoA) for every line before a single sentence is written. The catalogue narrows the field; the certificate supplies the evidence.
Stage One: Using the All-Peptides Listing as a Working Shortlist
The all-products category page at Research Sciences is described as a complete range of high-purity research peptides, laboratory accessories and preparation tools intended to support accurate and reliable in vitro laboratory studies. That framing is useful for grant work, because it tells you what the listing is and is not. It is a navigational overview of the current catalogue. It is not, on its own, a documentation source. Nothing should enter the appendix as a confirmed line item until its CoA has been opened and read.
Begin by scanning the listing against your experimental design rather than against a shopping instinct. Note each candidate by its catalogue name and stated pack quantity — for example, Tesamorelin 5mg, TB-500 5mg, Ipamorelin 5mg, CJC-1295 (No DAC) 5mg, GHK-Cu 50mg, BPC-157 10mg or MT-1 10mg — and record the accessories that make the work practical, such as Bacteriostatic Water 10ml (also worded as 10ml Mixing Water on the site) and the Storage Container. Reviewers respond well to a shortlist that includes consumables and cold-chain equipment, because it demonstrates that the study has been costed as a workflow rather than as a list of vials.
A useful discipline is a two-column working sheet. Column one holds the catalogue label exactly as it appears on the listing. Column two holds documentation status: CoA opened, reference recorded, storage statement checked, expiry noted. Any item that fails column two stays provisional. The shop states that it does not supply blended peptides and recommends buying peptides individually and combining only within a controlled experimental design, which aligns neatly with grant practice — each line item should map to one catalogue reference and one certificate.
Because catalogue wording can change, keep the current Buy peptides listing open beside the draft appendix and re-check names before submission rather than relying on a screenshot from an earlier planning meeting. Individual product pages show how listings are written: the MT-1 page, for instance, describes a lyophilised research peptide with published purity of ≥99%, storage at −20°C protected from moisture and light, and 2–8°C after reconstitution in a research setting. Treat such statements as the starting point for verification, not as the verification itself. Some pages still carry the Imperial Peptides UK name; the FAQs describe Research Sciences as the parent company and Imperial Peptides UK as a brand that continues to operate, so cite whichever name appears on the current product page and matching CoA.
Stage Two: Opening the Individual CoA and Recording What It Actually Says
Match the certificate to the catalogue entry
The FAQs state that every compound includes a CoA covering purity and identity by HPLC, and the About page describes a testing framework that also evaluates heavy metals and endotoxin. The homepage lists “CoAs Janoshik Analytical Reports”; if you mention that in an appendix, phrase it as the shop’s published wording and confirm it against the document that accompanies your specific batch. Open the certificate from the product page and read it alongside the listing, not from memory.
Extract only what the document shows: the compound name, the stated quantity, the certificate or batch reference, the purity figure as printed, the identity method, whichever contaminant screening fields are present, the storage instruction and the expiry. Resist the temptation to copy the headline “≥99% Verified Purity” claim into a grant narrative; the FAQs are explicit that the exact purity is stated on the CoA, and reviewers may ask why the appendix figure differs from the marketing line. Record the month and year you retrieved the document so the appendix can state when the evidence was checked.
ITRs, restocks and the assumptions to avoid
Restocked products may carry the same Internal Test Reference (ITR) as earlier stock. An ITR links to associated sample testing reports; it does not confirm that separate deliveries come from the same production lot or that they have had separate independent testing. For grant writing this matters: never write “same batch as previously tested” on the strength of a shared ITR alone. Vial cap colours and other packaging may vary, and cap colour is not an indicator of identity, analytical quality or manufacturing origin. Vial labels use a reference format that combines the SKU code and expiry date, such as BPC10-03/27, which links to the corresponding CoA — quote that reference when contacting the shop about documentation, and consider including it in the appendix so the line item is traceable to a specific certificate.
Stage Three: Drafting the Appendix in Language a Reviewer Will Accept
A table that carries the evidence
The cleanest structure is a table with fixed columns: catalogue reference, certificate reference, stated purity as printed, storage condition, quantity, and intended in vitro application. Add a short paragraph beneath it confirming that all materials are for controlled laboratory and analytical research only, are not for human or veterinary use, and are not medicines, medical devices, injectables, treatments or food supplements under UK law. State that the purchaser is responsible for lawful use, safe handling, storage and disposal, and for compliance with relevant UK regulations including COSHH and laboratory safety standards.
Handling language should remain inside the laboratory workflow. Note that vials are allowed to reach room temperature before opening, that work is carried out in a clean environment, and that only the amount required for the experiment is removed. Record that lyophilised peptides are stored at −20°C or below, sealed with desiccant and protected from moisture, heat and light, that repeated freeze–thaw cycles are avoided, and that reconstituted material is less stable and held at 2–8°C for short-term laboratory use. Where diluent volume and concentration are calculated for an in vitro assay, mention that the reconstitution calculator is for laboratory research use only and must not be used for human or veterinary dosing. It is also worth noting that peptides contain trace amounts of mannitol as an excipient, since a reviewer may ask what else is in the vial.
Sentences to keep and sentences to cut
Cut any phrasing that implies therapeutic, clinical or diagnostic purpose; the shop states that it does not provide therapeutic, medical, performance, injection, ingestion or dosing guidance. Keep sentences that describe assay context, documentation status and storage. For logistics, the published terms are that orders are dispatched the next working day via Royal Mail Tracked 24, which usually delivers the following working day as a Royal Mail estimate, with tracking issued after dispatch and times varying in peak periods. Payment is by Pay-By-Bank or Open Banking through providers such as Wallid, and card payments are not accepted. If your institution needs a delivery or volume figure for context, attribute it to the shop’s current published wording and reconfirm it on the live site and, where relevant, on the batch CoA. The appendix should read as evidence, not as promotion.
Lahore architect now digitizing heritage in Lisbon. Tahira writes on 3-D-printed housing, Fado music history, and cognitive ergonomics for home offices. She sketches blueprints on café napkins and bakes saffron custard tarts for neighbors.