Shilajit Lab Report Discrepancies: What Happens When Arsenic Results Differ?

Written by Ayesha Rahman
Golden Shilajit Official Research Team

Two Shilajit reports can show different arsenic numbers and both be legitimate. Before calling them contradictory, check what each laboratory tested and how it reported the result.

The batch, submitted sample, formulation, analyte, method, units and serving basis all matter. So do reporting limits, dates and revisions. Matching the product name is only the beginning.

The Short Answer

Why Two Arsenic Results May Differ

Some differences disappear once the reporting basis is aligned. Others remain and deserve investigation. Possible factors include:

• Different batches or submitted samples.
• A different formulation or sample preparation.
• Different methods, units or serving sizes.
• Dry-basis versus as-is reporting, where specified.
• Total arsenic versus a specific arsenic species.
• Different reporting limits.
• A revised report rather than a separate analysis.

Each is a question to investigate, not a ready-made explanation for a particular pair of reports.

Are These the Same Batch?

The same brand and product name do not mean the same batch. Match the exact lot identifiers and ask how the tested material connects to the product being sold.

If the batch references differ, the reports may describe separate production material. If they match, continue checking the sample relationship. A shared lot number alone does not settle comparability.

Same Batch Does Not Always Mean Same Submitted Sample

Two laboratories may receive different jars, subsamples or submissions associated with one batch. A laboratory sample ID identifies its submitted sample; it is not interchangeable with the production lot number.

Different sample IDs do not prove that the physical material differed. They do show that the records have separate laboratory references. Establishing whether the material came from the same split sample requires submission and sampling context.

Keep both results in view while checking that relationship. Separate sample references are a reason to ask for context, not to dismiss an inconvenient value.

Units Must Match

• µg/g: micrograms per gram of material.
• mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram of material. Numerically, 1 µg/g equals 1 mg/kg.
• mcg per serving: micrograms in the stated serving amount.
• mcg per daily intake: micrograms corresponding to the specified daily-use amount.

“mcg” and “µg” both denote micrograms. A concentration per gram and an amount per serving cannot be compared as bare numbers. Conversion requires the relevant serving weight and matching analytical basis.

Serving Basis Matters

A concentration describes an amount per unit of material. A serving-based result describes an amount in the portion specified by the report.

A value calculated for 0.5g does not describe a 1g intake. Equally, a daily-intake figure should not be treated as the laboratory concentration without checking how it was calculated.

First align the units and portion. Then check whether the results still differ. Normalising the presentation does not guarantee the measurements will agree.

Total Arsenic vs Inorganic Arsenic

Total arsenic and inorganic arsenic are different analytical results. A total-arsenic measurement does not identify how much is inorganic.

Look for the analyte wording and any specific speciation analysis. Do not rename a result simply labelled “arsenic” as inorganic arsenic without supporting documentation.

A total result cannot substitute for an inorganic-specific result when that distinction is the question being assessed.

Method and Sample Preparation

ICP-MS can measure elemental concentrations, but the instrument name is not the entire analytical procedure. Sample preparation, protocol, reporting basis and whether speciation was performed remain relevant.

Two reports mentioning ICP-MS are not guaranteed to produce identical results. Read the method identifiers and ask the laboratories what those procedures cover before attributing a difference to the instrument or product.

ND and Reporting Limits

ND means “not detected” under the method and reporting conditions stated by the laboratory. Check the report’s definition and applicable limit.

A result shown as “<X” is below the stated threshold, not confirmed zero. Reporting limits and detection limits should be read as the laboratory defines them, rather than assumed to be identical.

ND, a numeric result below a limit and zero are not interchangeable. Two laboratories with different limits may describe a low result differently.

When Is It a Real Discrepancy?

Deeper review is warranted when a meaningful difference remains after confirming the batch, formulation, analyte, comparable units and reporting basis, with no revision explanation resolving it.

Ask next about the submitted samples, preparation, method performance and any reported uncertainty. Those details help assess the significance of the difference; the numbers alone provide no universal cutoff for declaring a report wrong.

Buyer Checklist

• Product and formulation: the material described in each report.
• Batch or lot: the exact production reference.
• Sample ID: each laboratory’s submission identifier.
• Laboratory and report number: the traceable document source.
• Dates: test, report and revision dates where provided.
• Analyte: total arsenic, inorganic arsenic or another specified form.
• Method: procedure and sample-preparation context.
• Units: concentration, serving amount or daily-intake amount.
• Serving basis: the weight or volume used.
• Reporting limit: definitions of ND and below-limit notation.
• Document relationship: a revision or a separate test?
• Explanation: the laboratory or seller’s documented account of the relationship.

Golden Example: HI-SHL-0226

Golden’s published records include two arsenic determinations associated with HI-SHL-0226. Read them side by side, keeping their identifiers and original reporting formats attached.

Eurofins Scientific

• Report: 5374116-0.
• Report date: 21-May-2026.
• Sample: 16388887.
• Lot: HI-SHL-0226.
• Serving: 500mg.
• Arsenic: 1.18 mcg/Serving.
• Method: ICP_MS_S.

Anresco Laboratories

• Batch: HI-SHL-0226.
• Order: 960349.
• Sample: 1352051.
• Report date: 25-Aug-2026.
• Method: ICP-MS / MF24E022.
• Maximum daily intake (MDI): 0.5g.
• Arsenic: 4.941 µg/g and 2.470 µg/day.

Anresco’s calculation can be checked within its own reporting basis:

4.941 µg/g × 0.5g = 2.4705 µg per 0.5g, approximately consistent with its reported 2.470 µg/day at the stated intake.

Both records carry the same batch identifier, but the laboratories, sample IDs and dates differ. The serving/intake weights are equivalent: 500mg is 0.5g. The reported arsenic amounts differ, so unlike units alone do not resolve the comparison.

The remaining difference needs context about the submitted material and analytical procedures. It is not proof that either report is false or that the results are directly contradictory. Both values remain separate; neither is averaged away or selected as the correct result.

What These Results Do and Do Not Establish

Both are documented results associated with HI-SHL-0226, with different sample identifiers, dates and values. Their relationship needs submission and analytical context: the records alone neither establish identical split samples nor explain the entire difference.

Anresco’s result is total arsenic; it does not establish inorganic arsenic. The Eurofins entry is not interpreted as inorganic-specific either.

The reports also do not identify the batch currently being shipped. For the original records and batch context, see Golden Shilajit Lab Reports, Batch Verification and our Testing Process.

Golden sells Shilajit and has a commercial interest in this discussion. Our own differing results deserve the same scrutiny as any other product’s records.

Buyer Questions

• Are these the same batch and formulation?
• Was the same submitted material tested?
• Is the analyte the same?
• Are the units and serving basis comparable?
• Are the methods comparable?
• Was one report revised?
• Can the laboratory or seller explain the relationship?

Ask for the comparison context before choosing a preferred number. A result should not be discarded simply because another looks more reassuring.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why can two arsenic results differ?

Samples, batches, analytes, methods, units, serving bases and reporting limits can differ. Check those details before interpreting the numbers.

Does a different number mean one report is wrong?

No. First establish comparability. A remaining difference warrants explanation, not an automatic conclusion of error or falsification.

Is total arsenic the same as inorganic arsenic?

No. A total-arsenic result does not establish the inorganic portion without specific analysis.

What does ND mean?

Not detected under the laboratory’s stated method and reporting conditions. Check the applicable limit and report notes.

Is below detection limit the same as zero?

No. A below-limit result does not establish absolute absence.

Can two labs test the same batch and get different values?

Yes. The same batch identifier does not establish identical submissions, procedures or reporting conditions. Any remaining difference needs context.

What should I check before comparing reports?

Match product, batch, sample relationship, analyte, units, serving basis, methods, limits and dates. Establish whether the documents are separate tests or revisions.

Back to Shilajit Claims & Evidence Directory