Last reviewed: August 30, 2026. Educational content for adults 21+. This is not medical or legal advice. Kiody does not sell concentrated 7-OH products.
Suggested page / content hub: Learning Center → Lab Testing & Product Quality
Secondary phrases: kratom heavy metals COA, lead in kratom testing, kratom ICP-MS test, arsenic in kratom COA, how to read a kratom lab report
Suggested SEO title: Kratom Heavy-Metals Testing: How to Read a COA
Suggested meta description: Learn how to read lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury results on a kratom COA, including ppm, mg/kg, ICP-MS, ND, LOD, LOQ and serving calculations.
Suggested URL slug: /learn/kratom-heavy-metals-testing-coa/
The short answer
A useful kratom heavy-metals certificate of analysis should show more than four green “pass” boxes. It should connect a named product and lot to an actual sample, analytical method, result, unit, reporting limit and approved specification.
The most common panel lists lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Some panels add nickel, chromium, cobalt or other elements. A reviewer should ask ten questions:
- Does the COA match the exact product, form and lot?
- Was the finished product tested, or only a raw ingredient?
- Which elements were actually measured?
- Is the arsenic result total arsenic or inorganic arsenic?
- Are the results reported in ppm, mg/kg, µg/g, µg/kg or a liquid-volume unit?
- Is the result on an as-received, dry-weight or other stated basis?
- What method and sample preparation were used?
- What do ND, LOD, LOQ and any qualifiers mean on this report?
- What written specification produced the pass/fail decision?
- What is the estimated amount per labeled serving and per expected daily use?
The math is often simple; the interpretation is not. A concentration in a powder is not the same thing as exposure per serving. “Not detected” is not the same thing as zero. Total arsenic is not automatically inorganic arsenic. A laboratory result is not automatically a legal limit. And a passing heavy-metals panel says nothing by itself about botanical identity, microbes, pesticides, solvents, alkaloid composition or legal status.
Why this subject deserves its own guide
Kratom leaf is an agricultural material. Elements can be associated with soil, irrigation water, airborne material, processing equipment, grinding surfaces, added ingredients, water used in liquid products or other parts of the supply chain. Testing does not tell the reviewer exactly where an element came from, but it can show whether the sampled material met a written finished-product specification.
FDA has published kratom-specific laboratory work. In 2019, the agency reported testing 30 kratom products from different sources and stated that it found significant levels of lead and nickel at concentrations exceeding the oral daily drug-intake values FDA used for that analysis. FDA published the underlying sample results with the notice. FDA laboratory analysis of kratom products for heavy metals.
That FDA project is important evidence that elemental contamination deserves attention. It should not be rewritten as a universal retail specification for every kratom product. The agency compared its findings with daily oral exposure values used in a drug-quality framework. A company still needs a scientifically justified product specification, suitable test method, serving assumptions and documented release decision for its own product.
FDA scientists later described elemental analysis of kratom products using a modified version of the agency’s Elemental Analysis Manual method EAM 4.7. They noted challenges caused by complex and diverse kratom matrices and the limited availability of validated kratom-specific methods. FDA Science Forum: Elemental Analysis of Kratom Products Using ICP-MS.
That point is easy to miss: a respected instrument name does not make every result equally reliable. Sample preparation, matrix suitability, calibration, blanks, recovery, quality controls and reporting rules all matter.
FDA status and the quality-system framework
FDA’s current kratom information states that kratom has not been lawfully marketed in the United States as a conventional food or dietary supplement. Discussing dietary-supplement current good manufacturing practice requirements as a quality framework does not imply FDA approval of kratom or any Kiody product. FDA and Kratom.
Under 21 CFR §111.70, manufacturers of dietary supplements must establish specifications for identity, purity, strength and composition, plus limits on contamination that may adulterate or lead to adulteration of components, in-process material and finished batches. 21 CFR §111.75 addresses appropriate testing or examination to determine whether specifications are met. Laboratory operations and records are addressed in 21 CFR Part 111, Subpart J.
Those rules do not publish one universal “kratom heavy-metals limit” table. A COA that says “USP,” “FDA,” “Prop 65,” “ICH” or “internal” should identify the actual specification and its source instead of relying on a vague label.
Four concepts should remain separate:
- Result: what the laboratory reported for the tested sample.
- Reporting capability: the LOD, LOQ or reporting limit associated with the method.
- Specification: the approved acceptance criterion used to release or reject the lot.
- Legal requirement: a rule, statute, enforcement level or other applicable obligation in a jurisdiction.
A result can be accurately measured yet compared with the wrong specification. A defensible specification can be paired with a poorly suited method. A lot can meet a heavy-metals specification yet fail microbiology or alkaloid requirements. “Pass” is the end of a decision process, not a substitute for showing it.
The four-element panel at a glance
The phrase heavy metals is familiar but scientifically imprecise. Toxic elements or elemental contaminants is often clearer. The common four-element panel remains useful shorthand.
| COA row | What a typical total-element result measures | Question to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Lead (Pb) | Total acid-extractable lead under the stated method | What is the result per gram and per labeled serving? |
| Arsenic (As) | Often total arsenic, combining species the method measures | Is this total arsenic, inorganic arsenic or a species-specific result? |
| Cadmium (Cd) | Total acid-extractable cadmium under the stated method | Was the product form and serving amount used in the exposure review? |
| Mercury (Hg) | Often total mercury | Does the matrix or risk review require species-specific information? |
An expanded panel may include nickel, chromium, cobalt, thallium, vanadium or other elements. FDA’s current EAM 4.7 method covers multiple elements, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and nickel. The right panel depends on the material, suppliers, manufacturing process, other ingredients, packaging and documented risk assessment. FDA Elemental Analysis Manual.
What ICP-MS actually does
ICP-MS means inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. In simplified terms, the laboratory converts the analytical portion into a solution, introduces it into a high-temperature plasma that produces ions, and measures ions according to their mass-to-charge behavior. The instrument can detect many elements at low concentrations.
The instrument does not normally analyze a spoonful of dry leaf directly. The laboratory first performs sample preparation. FDA’s April 2025 revision of EAM 4.7 describes microwave-assisted digestion and ICP-MS determination of total acid-extractable concentrations of multiple elements in food. It emphasizes careful quality control and notes that method changes or use on other matrices may require validation. FDA EAM 4.7, April 2025.
A typical workflow includes:
- Receive, identify and document the sample.
- Homogenize the material sufficiently for the analytical portion to represent the submitted sample.
- Weigh a defined portion.
- Add suitable high-purity acids and digest the portion, often in a closed microwave vessel.
- Dilute the digest to a known mass or volume.
- Analyze calibration standards, blanks, controls, reference materials, spikes and sample solutions.
- Correct for dilution, sample mass and approved blank treatment.
- Review quality-control acceptance criteria.
- Report results with units and appropriate qualifiers.
Each step can affect the answer. A grinder fragment in one pouch, a poorly homogenized powder, a contaminated digestion vessel or a calculation error can matter as much as the sophistication of the instrument.
ICP-MS is not a product specification
“Tested by ICP-MS” answers how elements were measured. It does not tell you:
- which elements were included;
- whether the method was validated or verified for kratom powder, capsules, gummies or liquid extract;
- whether the sample was representative;
- whether digestion recovered the analytes adequately;
- whether quality controls passed;
- what specification applied; or
- whether the lot passed every other quality requirement.
Treat the method name as the start of a review, not the conclusion.
Sample preparation is where many answers are won or lost
Powder may appear homogeneous while still containing small-scale variation. Capsules add shell material and fill-weight questions. Gummies and flavored liquids add sugars, acids, colors, thickeners and water. Extracts may require smaller test portions or larger dilutions because of matrix concentration. A laboratory should show that its preparation and method are appropriate for the submitted form.
Questions worth asking include:
- Was the sample mixed or homogenized before the test portion was removed?
- Were capsules tested as intact finished units, pooled capsule fill or only bulk powder?
- Were liquid products shaken or otherwise prepared according to a validated instruction?
- Were gummies combined and homogenized, or was one unit tested?
- Did the laboratory validate recovery at concentrations relevant to the specification?
- Did it evaluate matrix suppression, enhancement or spectral interference?
- Was a duplicate preparation made from a separate portion, or were there merely duplicate instrument readings from one digest?
Two injections from the same digestion solution test instrument repeatability. They do not prove that the original jar, pouch or production lot was homogeneous.
The units: ppm, ppb, mg/kg and µg/g
For a solid product, common mass-fraction units convert as follows:
- 1 ppm = 1 mg/kg = 1 µg/g
- 1 ppb = 1 µg/kg = 0.001 µg/g
- 1 ppm = 1,000 ppb
These equalities make serving calculations manageable.
Solid-product serving calculation
For a result in mg/kg or ppm:
micrograms per serving = result in ppm × serving mass in grams
Why? One ppm equals one microgram per gram. A powder result of 1.2 ppm and a 3-gram serving therefore produces this arithmetic estimate:
1.2 µg/g × 3 g = 3.6 µg per serving
The calculation does not declare that amount safe, unsafe or legally compliant. It only converts concentration into an estimated amount associated with the stated serving.
Daily-use calculation
If the label permits two 3-gram servings per day:
3.6 µg per serving × 2 servings = 7.2 µg per labeled maximum day
A defensible decision should use the actual label directions and approved use assumptions. Comparing a one-serving exposure with a daily limit while the label allows several servings understates the modeled daily amount.
Capsules
For approximately 500 mg of leaf powder per capsule, two capsules contain about 1 gram of fill and six contain about 3 grams. The actual calculation should use the verified finished-product or fill weight, not assume that every capsule equals exactly 500 mg.
Liquids
Liquid COAs may use µg/L, mg/L or a mass-based unit. If a liquid result is 120 µg/L and the labeled serving is 15 mL:
15 mL = 0.015 L
120 µg/L × 0.015 L = 1.8 µg per serving
Do not apply the solid-product shortcut to a liquid-volume result. If the result is mass-based but serving size is expressed in milliliters, a verified density or measured serving mass may be needed.
Total arsenic is not the same as inorganic arsenic
Arsenic exists in different chemical forms, often called species. A standard multi-element ICP-MS result commonly reports total arsenic after digestion. That single number does not reveal how much is inorganic arsenic.
FDA explains that it tests foods for total arsenic and, when needed, can perform additional testing to determine organic and inorganic arsenic species. FDA: Arsenic in Food.
Arsenic speciation generally requires a separation step, such as high-performance liquid chromatography, connected to element-specific detection such as ICP-MS. FDA publishes matrix-specific speciation methods for products such as rice and juice. Those methods are useful technical references, but a method validated for rice or apple juice should not be presumed valid for kratom without appropriate matrix work.
A COA should therefore avoid these shortcuts:
- Reporting “Arsenic” and then treating the number as inorganic arsenic without a speciation method;
- Reporting total arsenic against an inorganic-arsenic limit without justification;
- Writing “organic arsenic” merely because the product is botanical; or
- Subtracting an assumed percentage from total arsenic without a measured species result.
If the specification is for total arsenic, label it total arsenic. If it is for inorganic arsenic, the method and report should support that answer.
Total mercury and mercury species
A four-element panel usually reports total mercury. Different mercury species have different exposure contexts. Whether species-specific analysis is necessary depends on the product matrix, source assessment and applicable specification.
The responsible approach is the same as for arsenic: report what the method actually measured. Do not relabel total mercury as methylmercury or claim that a non-detect proves every mercury species is absent.
ND, LOD, LOQ and reporting limits
ND: not detected
ND means the laboratory did not report a reliably detected amount under the stated method and conditions. It does not mean absolute zero.
An informative COA connects ND to a numerical limit, such as:
Lead: ND (<0.05 mg/kg)
Without a reporting limit, the reader cannot tell whether “ND” means below 0.005 ppm, 0.05 ppm or 5 ppm.
LOD: limit of detection
The LOD is a method-defined level associated with reliable detection. A result below the LOD is generally reported as not detected under the method.
LOQ: limit of quantitation
The LOQ is a level at or above which the laboratory can quantitatively report the analyte with the method’s defined performance. A signal can sometimes be detectable below the LOQ but too uncertain for ordinary quantitative reporting.
FDA’s current EAM 4.7 reporting instructions distinguish results below the LOD from results between the LOD and LOQ and require applicable qualifiers. That is stronger information than replacing every low result with an unqualified zero.
Reporting limit
Laboratories may use “reporting limit,” “quantitation limit,” “method reporting limit” or a client-specific reporting threshold. The report should define the term. Whatever name is used, the limit must be low enough to make the specification decision meaningful.
If a product specification is 0.10 ppm but the laboratory’s LOQ is 0.50 ppm, a reported ND does not establish compliance with the tighter specification. The method is not capable of making the required decision at the needed level.
As-received versus dry-weight results
An as-received result uses the material in the state submitted to the laboratory, including its measured moisture. A dry-weight result mathematically removes moisture from the denominator. The same sample can therefore have two different numerical concentrations.
Example:
- As-received lead: 0.90 mg/kg
- Moisture: 10%
- Dry matter fraction: 0.90
- Dry-weight lead: 0.90 ÷ 0.90 = 1.00 mg/kg
Neither basis is inherently deceptive. The problem occurs when the result and specification use different bases or when the COA does not say which basis applies.
Finished-product serving calculations normally start with the result basis that corresponds to the product as consumers receive and use it. Legal or contractual specifications may require a particular basis. Match them deliberately.
Five worked COA reviews
The following fictional examples teach the review method. They are not Kiody lot results, legal limits or recommended specifications.
Example 1: powder with a clear result but incomplete pass logic
COA information
- Product: Green botanical powder
- Lead: 1.8 ppm
- Labeled serving: 2.5 g
- Result: Pass
- Specification: not shown
Math
1.8 µg/g × 2.5 g = 4.5 µg lead per serving
Review
The concentration and serving math can be calculated, but the pass decision cannot be audited because the specification and maximum daily use are missing. Ask for the approved limit, its exposure basis and the labeled daily-use assumption.
Example 2: approximately 500 mg capsules
COA information
- Finished product: pure-leaf capsules
- Cadmium: 0.65 mg/kg
- Verified average fill: 0.50 g per capsule
- Label serving: six capsules
Math
Six capsules × 0.50 g = 3.0 g fill
0.65 µg/g × 3.0 g = 1.95 µg cadmium per serving
Review
The calculation is usable only if the COA matches the capsule lot and the tested portion represents the finished capsules. A bulk-powder result from a different lot is weaker evidence.
Example 3: a liquid with volume units
COA information
- Liquid product
- Arsenic: 120 µg/L
- Serving: 15 mL
- Result described only as “arsenic”
Math
120 µg/L × 0.015 L = 1.8 µg arsenic per serving
Review
The amount can be calculated, but the result likely represents total arsenic unless the method says otherwise. Do not call the 1.8 µg amount inorganic arsenic without speciation evidence.
Example 4: ND with a useful numerical bound
COA information
- Lead: ND
- Reporting limit: 0.05 mg/kg
- Serving: 4 g
Math
Because 0.05 mg/kg equals 0.05 µg/g, the result supports an upper reporting-bound statement of:
0.05 µg/g × 4 g = less than 0.20 µg per serving, assuming the stated reporting limit applies to the final result.
Review
Write “less than 0.20 µg at the reporting limit,” not “zero lead.” Confirm that 0.05 mg/kg is below the approved specification and that the method is suitable for the matrix.
Example 5: an impossible decision because the LOQ is too high
COA information
- Cadmium: ND
- Laboratory LOQ: 1.0 ppm
- Internal specification: no more than 0.50 ppm
Review
ND below 1.0 ppm does not prove the result is at or below 0.50 ppm. The sample could contain 0.75 ppm and still fall below the laboratory’s quantitation capability. The correct response is not an automatic pass; it is a method-capability investigation or retest using a suitably sensitive validated method.
Why concentration alone is not enough
Two products with the same concentration can create different serving amounts.
At 1 ppm lead:
| Product use amount | Arithmetic amount |
|---|---|
| 0.5 g capsule fill | 0.5 µg |
| 2 g powder serving | 2 µg |
| 5 g powder serving | 5 µg |
| 10 g total labeled daily use | 10 µg |
This is why a specification expressed only in ppm can be disconnected from exposure if serving size and maximum daily use vary widely. A robust specification record documents both concentration and the use assumptions supporting the limit.
That does not mean every COA must prescribe how consumers should use a product. It means the firm responsible for the specification should show how product composition, labeled directions and exposure-based limits fit together.
A COA is not the whole sampling plan
A laboratory usually analyzes grams, not an entire production batch. The result therefore depends on how the submitted sample was selected.
A stronger sampling record identifies:
- the production lot and lot size;
- containers or locations sampled;
- number and mass of increments;
- whether increments were combined into a composite;
- the person and date of collection;
- equipment and contamination controls;
- retention-sample handling;
- chain of custody; and
- any reason for targeted rather than representative sampling.
Compositing can improve representation, but it can also dilute a localized contamination event. Testing one convenient scoop can miss batch variation. Repeating the instrument run cannot repair a poor sampling plan.
Laboratory competence and scope
Independent accreditation can provide useful evidence about a laboratory’s quality system and technical scope, but a logo alone is not enough. Review the actual accreditation scope and confirm that it covers the relevant method, elements and matrix category. A laboratory accredited for drinking-water metals may not automatically have demonstrated competence for concentrated botanical gummies.
Useful questions include:
- Is the method listed on the laboratory’s current scope?
- Has the laboratory verified or validated it for this product form?
- Does the method include the required elements and reporting levels?
- How are digestion batches and analytical sequences controlled?
- Are certified reference materials or suitable matrix controls used?
- Are spike recoveries, duplicates and blanks reviewed before release?
- Does the COA identify subcontracted testing?
Quality controls behind a credible result
The one-page COA may not display every control, but the laboratory should retain them. FDA’s EAM 4.7 describes controls such as method blanks, duplicates, fortified samples, calibration verification and blank checks.
Method blank
A method blank travels through digestion and analysis without the sample. It helps detect contamination from acids, vessels, labware and the preparation process. A contaminated blank can make low-level sample results unreliable.
Laboratory duplicate
A separate preparation from a second analytical portion evaluates combined sample-preparation and analytical precision. It is more informative about preparation variability than two injections of one solution.
Matrix spike or fortified sample
A known amount of analyte is added to assess recovery in the sample matrix. Poor recovery can signal matrix interference, digestion problems or unsuitable conditions.
Certified reference material
A reference material with assigned values can help assess accuracy. The material should be relevant enough to the procedure and concentration range to support the intended conclusion.
Calibration verification and continuing blank
Verification standards check whether the calibration remains acceptable during the analytical sequence. Continuing blanks help reveal carryover after high-concentration samples.
Passing quality controls do not prove the production lot is homogeneous, but failing controls can undermine the reported analytical result.
20 warning signs on a heavy-metals COA
- The product name or lot does not match the package.
- Only a generic sample name such as “green powder” appears.
- The report shows pass/fail without numerical results.
- ND appears without LOD, LOQ or reporting limits.
- The units are missing.
- Solid and liquid units are mixed without density or conversion support.
- The result basis—such as as-received or dry weight—is unstated.
- Total arsenic is presented as inorganic arsenic without a speciation method.
- Total mercury is relabeled as a particular mercury species without support.
- The method is listed only as “ICP” with no procedure reference.
- The method reporting limit is higher than the specification.
- The COA says “FDA approved method” without identifying the method or matrix verification.
- A drug, food or state value is used as a universal kratom limit without explaining applicability.
- The serving calculation ignores maximum labeled daily use.
- A raw-leaf result is used to release a finished flavored, blended or liquid product.
- A supplier COA is reused across multiple lots.
- The sample receipt, preparation and analysis dates are absent or illogical.
- An amended report lacks version history or reason for change.
- The laboratory or manufacturer cannot provide the underlying specification.
- Heavy-metals passing is marketed as proof that the product is fully safe, legal or free of every contaminant.
One warning sign does not always prove misconduct. It identifies a question that should be resolved before relying on the report.
A practical 34-field Kiody review record
A review record can capture the following without crowding the public COA:
- Product name
- Product form
- Internal SKU
- Finished-product lot
- Component or supplier lot
- Batch size
- COA report number
- Laboratory name
- Laboratory accreditation status
- Relevant scope reviewed
- Sample collector
- Sampling date
- Sampling plan reference
- Chain-of-custody reference
- Laboratory receipt date
- Preparation date
- Analysis date
- Report date
- Method reference
- Matrix validation or verification reference
- Sample preparation and digestion reference
- Result basis
- Lead result, unit and qualifier
- Arsenic result, unit, species and qualifier
- Cadmium result, unit and qualifier
- Mercury result, unit, species and qualifier
- Any additional-element results
- LOD, LOQ or reporting limit for each element
- Approved specification and source
- Labeled serving amount
- Maximum labeled daily use used in the review
- Calculated amount per serving and day
- Quality-control review or exception reference
- Quality-unit release, rejection or investigation decision with date and approver
This record does not replace the original laboratory data, specification or batch documentation. It connects them so that the decision can be reconstructed.
Heavy-metals results do not answer alkaloid or legal questions
A metals panel measures elements. It does not determine mitragynine, 7-OH, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, MGM-16 or other alkaloid composition. It cannot establish whether a product is ordinary botanical leaf, an extract, enhanced leaf, concentrated 7-OH or a synthesized or semi-synthesized derivative.
As of August 30, 2026, the federal action concerning 7-OH above a specified threshold remains a proposal, with the comment period extended through September 10, 2026. By contrast, DEA’s temporary placement of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15 and MGM-16 in Schedule I became effective August 26, 2026. Federal 7-OH proposal, comment-period extension, and effective derivative order.
A product can pass a heavy-metals panel and still be unsuitable for sale because of alkaloid composition, microbiology, labeling, manufacturing records or jurisdiction-specific law. Conversely, a product’s botanical form does not excuse a failing elemental-contaminant specification.
Frequently asked questions
Does “heavy-metals tested” mean the product passed?
Not necessarily. It only says testing occurred. Look for the actual elements, results, units, reporting limits, specification and lot-release decision.
What are the four heavy metals usually tested in kratom?
Many panels include lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Expanded panels may include nickel and other elements based on risk assessment.
Is ppm the same as mg/kg?
For a solid mass fraction, yes: 1 ppm equals 1 mg/kg and 1 µg/g.
How do I calculate micrograms per serving?
For a solid result in ppm, multiply the ppm value by the serving mass in grams. A 0.8 ppm result and 3-gram serving equals 2.4 µg per serving.
Does ND mean zero?
No. It means the analyte was not reliably detected under the method and its stated detection capability. The numerical reporting limit is necessary to interpret ND.
What is the difference between LOD and LOQ?
LOD concerns reliable detection; LOQ concerns reliable quantitative reporting under defined method performance. A signal may sometimes be detected below the LOQ but not reported as an ordinary quantified result.
Is total arsenic the same as inorganic arsenic?
No. Total arsenic combines the arsenic forms recovered and measured by the total-element method. Inorganic arsenic requires suitable species-specific analysis or other scientifically supported determination.
Can I subtract an assumed organic-arsenic percentage?
No reliable product decision should be based on an invented percentage. Use an appropriate speciation result when the specification requires inorganic arsenic.
What does ICP-MS stand for?
Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, an analytical technique capable of measuring multiple elements at low concentrations after suitable sample preparation.
Is ICP-MS automatically valid for every kratom product?
No. The procedure must be suitable for the matrix, concentrations, elements and decision limits. Powder, capsules, gummies and liquids can require different preparation or validation work.
Should capsules be tested as finished product?
Finished-product testing provides direct evidence about the marketed lot, including the combined influence of the fill, shell, manufacturing and packaging. Component testing can add useful information but is not always an adequate substitute.
Can a raw-leaf COA cover an extract made from that leaf?
Not by itself. Extraction, concentration, carriers, water, equipment and blending can change the product and its contaminant profile. The finished extract requires its own justified testing and specification plan.
Why might dry-weight and as-received results differ?
Dry-weight reporting removes moisture from the denominator. The same amount of element is divided by a smaller dry-material mass, so the numerical concentration is often higher.
Is there one federal heavy-metals limit for all kratom?
The cited federal sources do not publish one universal kratom retail limit applying to every element, form, serving and use pattern. Specifications must be scientifically justified and reviewed for applicable legal requirements.
Can a COA use a California warning level as its product specification?
A company must first determine whether the cited rule applies, what exposure calculation it requires and whether current state requirements are satisfied. A bare “Prop 65 pass” label is not enough to audit the decision.
Does a passing metals panel prove the product is safe?
No. It is evidence about specified elements in a tested sample. It does not cover every hazard, every package, later contamination, consumer-specific risks or legal status.
Does metals testing identify concentrated 7-OH?
No. Alkaloid composition requires a separate suitable analytical method. Kiody does not sell concentrated 7-OH.
How often should a product be tested?
Frequency should follow a documented risk-based and regulatory plan considering suppliers, ingredients, product form, process, historical trends and changes. A single old COA should not be treated as permanent evidence for future lots.
Primary sources and technical references
- FDA — Laboratory Analysis of Kratom Products for Heavy Metals
- FDA Science Forum — Elemental Analysis of Kratom Products Using ICP-MS
- FDA — Elemental Analysis Manual for Food and Related Products
- FDA EAM 4.7 — ICP-MS with Microwave-Assisted Digestion, April 2025
- FDA — Arsenic in Food
- 21 CFR §111.70 — Specifications
- 21 CFR §111.75 — Determining Whether Specifications Are Met
- 21 CFR Part 111, Subpart J — Laboratory Operations
- FDA — Current Kratom Information
- DEA — Proposed Federal 7-OH Threshold Action
- DEA — 7-OH Comment-Period Extension Through September 10, 2026
- DEA — Effective Temporary Schedule I Order for MP, MGM-15 and MGM-16
Approximate draft word count: 5,350 words.
Publication status: Unpublished review draft. No product, price, order, payment, shipping or inventory changes authorized or made.