Copper Tripeptide-1 (GHK-Cu) vs GHK: How to Verify CAS, Copper Complex, Purity & COA

Quick Answer

Copper Tripeptide-1 is one of those cosmetic ingredients that looks simple until procurement starts comparing real listings. The market uses GHK, GHK-Cu, copper peptide, blue copper peptide, Copper Tripeptide-1 and prezatide copper almost interchangeably. Supplier pages then add another layer of confusion by attaching CAS 49557-75-7 to a blue copper complex, using 98% or 99% HPLC without defining the measured species, or selling a dilute solution under the same headline as a high-purity lyophilized powder. Those are not minor naming differences.

Free GHK and the copper complex are distinct chemical records. The free tripeptide glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine is associated with CAS 49557-75-7 and a molecular formula without copper. FDA GSRS identifies prezatide copper / Copper Tripeptide-1 under CAS 89030-95-5 and UNII 6BJQ43T1I9 as the copper complex.

For a buyer, that creates a hard rule:

do not approve a GHK-Cu quote until the product name, CAS, copper-containing identity, grade form, assay basis and batch documents describe the same material.

This page is the identity and grade-control entry point for the GHK-Cu cluster. Later pages can own usage level, formulation compatibility, storage, price and supplier qualification without reopening the basic identity question.

GHK and GHK-Cu Are Related, but They Are Not the Same Purchase Identity

GHK is the tripeptide glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine. PubChem lists the free peptide as C14H24N6O4 with molecular weight about 340.38 g/mol and CAS 49557-75-7. GHK-Cu is the copper complex formed when GHK coordinates Cu(II). FDA's substance registry lists PREZATIDE COPPER under UNII 6BJQ43T1I9 and maps it to CAS 89030-95-5, Copper Tripeptide-1, GHK copper and related synonyms. PubChem likewise lists prezatide copper under CAS 89030-95-5 and identifies copper as a component of the record.

That means a supplier can be selling a chemically related material and still be using the wrong registry number for the product being marketed. If the listing says GHK-Cu or Copper Tripeptide-1 but gives CAS 49557-75-7, the buyer should not automatically conclude that the material is counterfeit. The correct conclusion is that the listing identity is internally inconsistent and must be resolved with controlled documentation before approval.

Why the CAS Mismatch Is a Real Sourcing Problem

The mismatch is widespread enough that it cannot be treated as an isolated typo. Current supplier pages can describe a blue GHK-Cu powder, claim that copper is chelated to the tripeptide, and still publish CAS 49557-75-7. Other suppliers use CAS 89030-95-5 for Copper Tripeptide-1. The practical danger is not merely database neatness. CAS is often copied into internal specifications, SDS files, customs records, ERP master data and customer dossiers. If the wrong identity is approved at the beginning, every downstream document can remain internally consistent while referring to the wrong substance record.

Therefore, CAS should be cross-checked against the declared chemical form rather than accepted because it appears repeatedly across commercial pages.

Use a Three-Field Identity Check Before Reading the Purity Claim

For GHK-Cu, the quickest screening check is to align three fields:

• Declared product identity: Copper Tripeptide-1 / GHK-Cu / prezatide copper.
• Registry identity: CAS 89030-95-5 for the copper complex rather than CAS 49557-75-7 for free GHK.
• Copper-containing chemical evidence: molecular formula, mass-spectrometric identity, elemental/copper result, or another controlled identity method consistent with the complex.

A listing that passes only one of those fields remains a lead, not an approved ingredient. Do not use product color as the identity test. Blue coloration is consistent with copper complexes, but appearance cannot distinguish a defined GHK-Cu grade from another copper-containing peptide material, a diluted solution or a poorly characterized mixture.

99% HPLC Does Not Automatically Mean 99% GHK-Cu by Mass

Purity language is the second major source of confusion. A supplier may report 98%, 99% or 99.9% by HPLC. HPLC area purity can be useful for measuring chromatographic purity of the peptide-related material, but the number should not automatically be interpreted as total mass fraction of fully copper-complexed GHK-Cu. The buyer needs to know what is injected, what the method detects, how the main peak is assigned and whether copper complexation is verified separately.

A high main-peak area can coexist with questions about water content, counterions, residual solvent, free GHK, free copper, incomplete complexation or another form of the same peptide. For a high-purity powder, ask the supplier to distinguish at least three concepts when applicable: HPLC chromatographic purity, chemical assay/content, and evidence that the intended copper complex is actually present.

HPLC Purity and Copper-Complex Identity Solve Different Questions

Powder, 1% Solution and 0.1% Solution Are Different Commercial Architectures

The GHK-Cu market includes high-purity powders and much more dilute ready-to-formulate solutions. A powder listing may advertise 98-99% HPLC purity. A commercial solution may contain 1%, 0.1% or another defined amount of Copper Tripeptide-1 in water, humectant or a preserved carrier. These materials cannot be compared by headline price or inclusion rate until the active concentration is normalized. For a solution, the buyer should identify the active percentage, carrier composition, preservative system, pH, density where relevant and whether the stated percentage is w/w or another basis.

For a powder, the buyer should identify actual assay basis, water content, copper-complex identity and reconstitution or formulation guidance. A 1 kg drum of 0.1% solution contains a very different amount of active GHK-Cu from 1 kg of high-purity powder. Treating both as one kilogram of copper peptide destroys the commercial comparison.

Active-Equivalent Normalization Prevents Powder-vs-Solution Errors

Use a simple normalization before comparing cost or formula dosage:

Active GHK-Cu mass = product mass × declared active fraction

One kilogram of a 1.0% solution contains 10 g of declared active before any assay correction. One kilogram of a 0.1% solution contains 1 g of declared active. A 100 g high-purity powder at 99% nominal assay represents about 99 g of nominal active-equivalent material, subject to the supplier's assay definition and batch result. This calculation does not solve identity. It becomes useful only after the buyer has confirmed that the percentage refers to the intended Copper Tripeptide-1 grade.

A Professional COA Should Allow the Buyer to Reconstruct the Grade

For a high-purity GHK-Cu powder, a COA that contains only Purity: 99% is not enough for serious qualification. The shipment-lot document should allow the buyer to connect the batch to the approved specification and to the material identity used in the purchase order.

• Exact product/grade name and supplier grade code.
• Batch or lot number.
• Copper Tripeptide-1 / GHK-Cu identity with the agreed registry information.
• Appearance.
• HPLC purity result and acceptance criterion.
• Assay/content field when the supplier controls one separately from HPLC area purity.
• Water / loss on drying where relevant.
• Copper-related specification or identity evidence where used by the supplier.
• Residual solvent or other process-related impurity controls where relevant.
• Microbiological or heavy-metal controls only when they are part of the agreed grade and use case.
• Test methods or method references sufficient to understand what each result represents.
• Release status, date and authorized quality approval.

Do Not Accept a Molecular-Formula Conflict as a Formatting Detail

Copper-complex records can be represented differently depending on protonation state and database convention, so small formula differences need careful interpretation rather than automatic rejection. However, a formula that contains no copper at all while the product is sold as Copper Tripeptide-1 is a materially different problem. FDA GSRS explicitly records prezatide copper as a copper-containing substance. PubChem also identifies copper as part of the complex.

If a supplier specification for GHK-Cu gives the free-GHK formula C14H24N6O4, ask the supplier to explain whether the formula field was copied from the ligand record or whether the offered material has been incorrectly identified. The buyer should resolve that inconsistency before treating the document pack as controlled.

Biological Evidence Belongs After Identity, Not Before It

GHK-Cu has a substantial research history in skin biology, extracellular-matrix regulation and wound-related processes. A recent review of peptides in skin senescence describes Copper Tripeptide-1 as a carrier peptide capable of binding copper and discusses reported effects on extracellular-matrix components, fibroblast function and wound-related signaling. A 2023 study using fibroblast and ex-vivo skin models found that GHK-Cu combined with low-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid increased collagen-related responses, with a particularly strong effect on collagen IV in the tested systems.

Those studies support why formulators care about the ingredient. They do not allow a buyer to infer that any blue powder called GHK-Cu has the same identity, purity or biological performance. Commercial qualification must therefore move in the opposite direction from marketing: verify the material first, then interpret the literature.

Hard-Reject Conditions for a GHK-Cu Raw Material

• Listing claims Copper Tripeptide-1 but supplier cannot resolve why the controlled specification uses free-GHK identity only.
• CAS, product name and formula contradict one another and the supplier cannot provide a controlled explanation.
• The seller cannot state whether the material is free GHK, GHK-Cu powder or a diluted solution.
• A 98-99% purity claim is shown without a method or without enough information to understand what the percentage represents.
• Sample COA and commercial specification describe materially different grades.
• The quoted product changes between powder and solution without a new grade code.
• The lot offered for purchase cannot be linked to a lot-specific COA.
• A landing page reaches the wrong product or a materially different peptide.

Current Verified Sourcing Leads

The current GHK-Cu sourcing cycle produced two Alibaba Product IDs that passed the article-level screening stage and whose landing pages were manually confirmed. Landing verification confirms the intended Alibaba product page, not complete analytical approval.

Incoming-QC Plan for the First Commercial Lot

1. Match paperwork to the purchase order. Confirm supplier, grade code, lot number, pack size and declared product identity before opening the material.
2. Compare the shipment COA with the approved specification. Check that test names, limits and methods have not silently changed.
3. Confirm identity. Use a fit-for-purpose identity approach appropriate to the commercial risk; do not rely only on blue color.
4. Review HPLC purity in context. Confirm what the main peak represents and whether the batch meets the agreed chromatographic criterion.
5. Confirm copper-complex evidence. Where the project risk justifies it, review copper-related assay, elemental result or orthogonal identity evidence.
6. Check physical form and handling. Powder appearance, solubility/reconstitution behavior and packaging should match the approved grade.
7. Retain the first-lot record. Keep the COA, relevant chromatogram/identity documents and a reserve sample according to the buyer's quality system.
8. Reopen qualification after material change. A new site, synthesis route, grade, complexation process or analytical method can require re-evaluation.

One RFQ Sentence Can Prevent Most Identity Mistakes

Ask the supplier to quote the exact grade as Copper Tripeptide-1 / GHK-Cu, CAS 89030-95-5, and to state whether the supplied percentage is HPLC area purity, chemical assay, or active concentration in a solution. Then require the quotation, specification and lot COA to use the same grade code. If those three documents cannot be reconciled, do not solve the conflict by choosing whichever field appears most often. Affiliate Reports tracking remains a separate status and should not be inferred from landing verification.

If either listing later changes identity, grade or Product ID, the historical landing status does not override the new technical conflict.

Buyer Decision

Copper Tripeptide-1 sourcing should start with identity, not with a 99% headline. Free GHK and GHK-Cu are related but distinct records. CAS 49557-75-7 belongs to the free tripeptide record; FDA GSRS maps prezatide copper / Copper Tripeptide-1 to CAS 89030-95-5. A high HPLC area percentage can support chromatographic purity, but it does not, by itself, prove copper complexation, total mass assay or absence of free GHK and other nonchromatographic components. Powder and dilute solution grades must be normalized by actual active content before price or usage comparisons are meaningful.

The strongest procurement file aligns product name, registry identity, copper-containing chemical evidence, controlled specification and lot-specific COA. Once those fields agree, the buyer can move to formulation, stability, cost and supplier qualification. Until then, the product is still an identity problem rather than a finished sourcing decision.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration / Global Substance Registration System. PREZATIDE COPPER, UNII 6BJQ43T1I9; synonyms include Copper Tripeptide-1 and CAS 89030-95-5.
2. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Summary: glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine (GHK), CID 73587; CAS 49557-75-7.
3. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Summary: Prezatide copper, CID 71587328; Copper Tripeptide-1 / GHK copper, CAS 89030-95-5.
4. Peptides: Emerging Candidates for the Prevention and Treatment of Skin Senescence: A Review. 2025. PubMed Central.
5. Jiang F, Wu Y, Liu Z, Hong M, Huang Y. Synergy of GHK-Cu and hyaluronic acid on collagen IV upregulation via fibroblast and ex-vivo skin tests. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 2023;22(9):2598-2604.