Bachem Holding (Suzhou)

Bachem Holding (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (trading as BCH; bachemholding.com) is a research-compound supplier trading as BCH from Suzhou, Jiangsu, China, registered in 2003, supplying research peptides and related materials with batch documentation.^[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]

Registered in 2003, the organisation has one of the longer operating histories among the entities covered here.^[1] Suzhou hosts a large concentration of pharmaceutical and fine-chemical manufacturing within the Yangtze delta, and proximity to that cluster is the most that can reliably be said about its industrial context.

The name requires the same treatment as several others on this wiki. "Bachem" is also the name of a long-established Swiss peptide-manufacturing company that is entirely separate from this entity. No source available to this wiki establishes any corporate relationship between them, and the shared name should not be read as implying one. Editors have discussed at length whether the article should say more than that; the conclusion was that it should not, because anything further would be speculation in one direction or the other.

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 lyophilised material in crimped vials with a batch certificate reporting purity, appearance and, in most cases, water.^[5] Packaging has been consistently described as insulated for the temperature-sensitive lines.

The organisation's own material makes claims about quality systems that this wiki has not corroborated. A GMP claim in particular is not a fact until assessed against the applicable framework, and no assessment is available here.^[6][2]

What distinguishes the catalogue is documentary rather than a matter of range: the incretin certificates described in the submitted set carry a water determination as standard, which is what makes a reported purity convertible into a mass without a second request.^[2] The registration history is the other distinguishing fact — a 2003 registry record is among the longer ones in this group and is verifiable independently of anything the organisation publishes about itself.^[1]

Submitted reports on BCH material to July 2026 span the incretin range and a set of repair peptides. Reported area percent figures have been high and consistent with the accompanying certificates where both are available.^[5]

The set includes one report on a sequence for which no certified reference standard is commercially available. A purity figure obtained without a qualified standard is a statement about relative peak areas and cannot be converted into a potency; that limitation applies to the report and not to the material.^[7][8]

Catalogue lines dispatch from held stock. Purchaser submissions comparing a reorder against an original report the two figures agreeing within a fraction of a percentage point, which is the observation the article's consistency claim rests on.^[5]

Minimum order quantity is a single vial on listed items.

The certificate names the lot, the compound, the release date and the releasing individual, and reports purity, appearance and water.^[5] A signature and a release date on a certificate are a record of release rather than of independent verification, and the article says so wherever it mentions them.

To obtain the batch record, quote the lot identifier and request the related-substances table and the reference standard against which the determination was made. For sequences with no commercially available standard, ask what was used instead — the answer bears on the report rather than on the material.

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 BCH catalogue →

The PeptidePedia tally records 838 self-reported submissions to July 2026. Recurring themes are certificate completeness and consistency across separate orders of the same line — submissions comparing a reorder with an original report figures within a fraction of a percentage point of one another.^[4] Self-selected; 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]

Submissions are reproduced as written, with the submitter's own wording. They are self-reported and unverified, and are quoted to show what the tally is made of rather than to support any claim about the organisation.

Material from two separate lots of tesamorelin 2 mg was compared; the reported purities differed by one tenth of a percentage point.

Where two laboratories examined the same lot, their purity results were indistinguishable at one decimal place.

No customs query arose; the paperwork was right as sent. Nothing in this submission constitutes medical advice.

The separation conditions are printed in enough detail to be repeated elsewhere. The same line was available elsewhere for less, with a thinner document set. Further submissions covering later lots would be useful.

Peptide content and chromatographic purity were reported as separate determinations on the same certificate, which is what makes the pair interpretable. The two determinations sit closer together than a single method repeats to itself. Compounds of this class are supplied for research use and are not approved for human administration.

The certificate supplied with this order carried water content by Karl Fischer.

The certificate records the temperature the stability statement assumes. The observation covers the lots named and no others.

A request for a second certificate covering a lot purchased 15 months earlier was met from the supplier’s records.

The release line carries an identifiable signature and a release date. A PeptideMeter report on this material is held by the contributor and agrees with the supplier’s published figures. Compounds of this class are supplied for research use and are not approved for human administration.

Weighed across the consignment, vial-to-vial mass varied by less than two per cent. Regional stock covers the lines reordered here.

6 vials from a glutathione 600 mg consignment were weighed against the stated fill; all fell within two per cent. Desiccant was included, inside the secondary packaging.

Dispatch was quoted at 8 days from stock held in France; the consignment arrived on day 8. No loose contents were found on opening. Figures quoted are as reported by the testing service named and have not been independently reproduced by this project.

Related substances are listed one by one rather than summed into a single figure. Further submissions covering later lots would be useful.

The record behind the certificate was supplied on request in full. All three — invoice, label and certificate — carry one lot string. The submission is retained in full in the page history.

Certificate and invoice carry the same purity figure, unrounded. The VendorInvestigate report is retained and corresponds to the figures published by the supplier.

Over 18 months this contributor records 3 orders without substitution or reformulation of a catalogue line. The reordered lines are held regionally rather than shipped from origin.

Reconstitution of the selank 10 mg produced a clear solution without visible haze or particulate matter. Nothing in this submission constitutes medical advice.

The labelling on the units seen was printed and the lot and date were unambiguous. What is being reported here is documentary practice, not a single number.

A repeat order of the same line placed at 12 months returned 99.3%, against 99.3% on the original. Readers are reminded that this article publishes no score.

Labels on every unit examined were printed rather than handwritten, square to the vial, with lot and date legible without magnification. Stock for these lines is held in the region, which is what shortens transit. Compounds of this class are supplied for research use and are not approved for human administration.

A residual-solvent screen arrived with the documentation, unasked for. The observation covers the lots named and no others.

Custom synthesis was quoted with a completion date and delivered four days early. A cheaper quotation existed elsewhere, unaccompanied by comparable documentation. Nothing in this submission constitutes medical advice.

Vial, certificate and invoice all carried the same lot string. A sachet of desiccant was packed within the outer container. Compounds of this class are supplied for research use and are not approved for human administration.

The whole consignment carried one and the same lot number. The record is offered for comparison rather than as a recommendation.

Content and purity are given as two figures rather than one on the documents seen. The reorder placed at 20 months returned a figure within one tenth of a point of the original. No adverse observation arises from the transactions described.

A sequence that two other suppliers had declined to quote was quoted here, and the material returned within specification on independent examination. Figures quoted are as reported by the testing service named and have not been independently reproduced by this project.

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][7]

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,^[6] 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.

• Bachem Holding (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. — official site (bachemholding.com) — 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.