How to Read a Shilajit Certificate of Analysis (COA)
In short: A Certificate of Analysis (COA) is a document that records analytical results for a particular submitted sample. It can help you understand what was measured, how it was reported and which limits apply, but it is not proof of efficacy, suitability for every person or universal testing.
What is a Certificate of Analysis?
A Certificate of Analysis is a laboratory document linked to a sample that was submitted for analysis. It normally identifies the report, describes the sample, records when the analysis took place and lists the parameters that were measured.
The useful question is not simply whether a brand has a certificate. It is: what does this particular document actually establish? A good reading separates the sample identity, the measured result, the unit, the laboratory method and any stated limitation.
For the current Shilajit Gold+ reports, the report code can be entered through the Lab Testing hub to verify the report record. Verification confirms the report and its recorded results. It does not turn a sample-specific result into a guarantee about every product unit.
How to read the technical fields
1. Report code
The report code is the reference used to identify the laboratory report. Keep it with the product name and sample description. A product name alone is not enough to identify which analysis you are reading.
2. Sample and batch information
The sample description and batch information help connect the report to the material that was submitted. They do not, by themselves, prove that every unit from that batch or every later batch has the same composition.
3. Analysis date
The analysis date tells you when the reported work was completed. It is not the same thing as an expiry date, a manufacturing date or a promise that the result remains unchanged indefinitely.
4. Analyte or parameter
An analyte is the substance or characteristic being measured. In the available reports, the listed parameters include fulvic-acid composition and selected heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury.
5. Result and unit
A number is meaningful only with its unit. The current fulvic-acid results are reported as grams per 100 grams, written as g/100g. The result should not be confused with a health outcome or with the general label specification.
6. Limit of quantification
The limit of quantification, or LOQ, is the lowest level that the method reports quantitatively under the stated conditions. A result shown as <0.01 mg/kg means the result was below that reporting threshold. It does not mean zero, and an LOQ is not a regulatory safety limit.
7. Test method and conclusion
A test method is the laboratory procedure used to identify or measure an analyte under stated conditions. A report may identify the analytical method and present results without giving a pass/fail conclusion, a legal-compliance decision or a clinical-safety conclusion. Those are separate questions that require the relevant standard, product assessment and context.
What the current Shilajit Gold+ reports record
The available reports record the following results for submitted product samples:
| Product sample | Report | Fulvic-acid result |
|---|---|---|
| Gold+ Capsules | AR-258-2025-20051564-01 | 79.22 g/100g |
| Gold+ Resin | AR-258-2025-20051565-01 | 76.74 g/100g |
The label specification for both formats is 75–80% fulvic acid. That label range is a general product specification. The figures above are the results recorded for the submitted samples associated with the two report codes.
The reports also record selected results for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury. In the supplied report data, mercury is reported as <0.01 mg/kg; this means it was below the reporting threshold, not that mercury was measured at zero. The reports do not provide a general pass/fail statement, a regulatory-limit conclusion, microbial results, absolute safety conclusion or evidence of human efficacy. The reports state that Eurofins did not take the samples, so the findings should be read as sample-specific analytical results.
Why the sample wording matters
The point I want customers to understand is how to read the technical fields rather than simply trust a testing badge. A report is more useful when you can identify the sample, the method, the unit and the limitation. That is a stronger basis for a careful decision than a headline saying a product is simply “tested”.
What a COA does not prove
- It does not prove that every batch or every unit was analysed.
- It does not prove that the product is safe for every individual.
- It does not prove that the product treats, prevents or cures a medical condition.
- It does not prove that a measured composition produces a particular human outcome.
- It does not prove regulatory compliance unless the relevant requirements and assessment are identified.
- It does not make a food supplement equivalent to a medicine.
A COA can answer only the analytical questions covered by the tests it contains. Authenticity asks whether a material is what it is claimed to be. Purity asks what else may be present. Safety also depends on factors such as exposure, serving size, the complete formulation and the individual. Efficacy asks whether a product produces a claimed outcome. The Eurofins reports discussed here provide results for named analytes in submitted samples. They do not, on their own, prove absolute authenticity, purity, safety or efficacy.
This is not a criticism of laboratory analysis. It is the reason to use it accurately. Analytical testing can tell you about the parameters measured in the submitted sample. It cannot answer every question a customer might have about long-term use, individual suitability or clinical effectiveness.
Where Ayurveda fits
Shilajit has a long history of use within Ayurveda, including discussion within the Rasayana tradition. That historical framework can help explain why people have valued the ingredient, but it is not the same thing as a laboratory result.
A COA describes measured composition. Ayurvedic tradition describes a traditional framework and use. Human clinical research asks different questions again. Keeping those categories separate makes the evidence easier to understand and avoids turning tradition or a laboratory number into a medical promise.
Questions to ask when reviewing a COA
- Which exact product and sample does the report describe?
- What is the report code, and can the record be verified?
- When was the analysis completed?
- Which parameters were actually measured?
- What units are used?
- Are any results reported below an LOQ?
- Does the report provide a regulatory limit or only an analytical result?
- Does the document say who collected or submitted the sample?
- What does the report leave unanswered?
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a COA prove a supplement is safe?
No. It provides analytical information about the tested parameters in the submitted sample. Individual suitability, clinical safety and regulatory assessment are separate questions.
Is 76.74% or 79.22% fulvic acid a health claim?
No. Those are measured composition results for the submitted samples associated with the stated report codes. A percentage does not by itself establish a particular human health outcome.
Does “below the reporting limit” mean zero?
No. A result below the stated reporting threshold is not the same as zero.
Where can I see the available reports?
Use the Shilajit Lab Testing hub for the available report references and evidence notes. The lab results comparison guide explains the difference between label specifications and measured submitted-sample results.
References and further reading
- 5 Rivers Nutrition Lab Testing hub
- Lab results comparison guide
- How to Verify Shilajit Authenticity
- Shilajit Gold+ Capsules
- Shilajit Gold+ Resin
Last reviewed: 4 September 2026. Made in India. Sugar Free. Gluten Free.