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: Learning Center → Lab Testing & Product Quality
Editorial note: Kiody is 21+ and does not sell concentrated 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). This article is educational, not medical or legal advice.
The short answer
A useful kratom pesticide certificate of analysis, or COA, should do more than show a green checkmark beside the word “pesticides.” It should identify the tested product and lot, list the individual pesticide residues included in the method, show an actual result for each analyte, state the reporting limit or limit of quantitation, identify the analytical method and sample matrix, and show the specification used to reach any pass-or-fail decision.
No single laboratory screen detects every pesticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration explains that multiresidue methods can determine many residues at once, while selective methods may be needed for pesticides that are not adequately detected by a multiresidue method. FDA laboratories currently use a harmonized modified QuEChERS extraction with chromatography–mass spectrometry detection for broad screening and may use other procedures for difficult residues, interfering matrices, confirmation, or follow-up work.[1][2]
That distinction matters. “ND” means not detected under the stated method and reporting conditions. It does not mean that the product contains no pesticide molecules, that every pesticide in existence was tested, or that every package in the lot was individually examined.
What is pesticide-residue testing?
Pesticides are used in agriculture to manage insects, fungi, weeds, and other pests. A pesticide residue is a remaining amount of a pesticide chemical, its relevant metabolite, degradate, or other residue definition specified by regulation. Residues may be measured in a raw agricultural ingredient, an extract, or a finished product.
EPA establishes food tolerances, which are maximum legally permitted amounts of specific pesticide residues on or in specific food commodities. Tolerances are not one universal number. The permitted amount can differ by pesticide and commodity. Some substances or uses are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance. FDA enforces EPA tolerances for most domestic foods in interstate commerce and foods offered for U.S. import.[3][4]
For a kratom buyer, pesticide testing answers a narrower question than many marketing claims suggest:
Did the laboratory detect any of the listed residues in the submitted sample, using the stated method, at or above the method’s stated reporting capability—and how did those results compare with the documented specification?
Pesticide testing does not establish botanical identity, alkaloid composition, microbial quality, heavy-metal content, residual-solvent quality, allergen controls, or legal eligibility. Those require separate evidence.
Why plant powders deserve matrix-specific review
Dried leaf powder is chemically and physically complex. It contains pigments, oils, plant acids, carbohydrates, alkaloids, fibers, and fine particles. These components can affect extraction, cleanup, ionization, chromatography, and detector response. Laboratories refer to these influences collectively as matrix effects.
A method that performs well in a watery fruit may not perform identically in a dark, finely ground botanical powder. The laboratory should verify that its method is appropriate for the intended matrix. Under 21 CFR §111.320, a laboratory method used for a dietary-supplement specification must be scientifically valid and appropriate for its intended use.[5]
For consumers, the practical questions are:
- Was the method validated or verified for dried botanical material, leaf powder, capsules, extract, or the actual finished-product matrix?
- Did the laboratory use matrix-matched calibration, internal standards, procedural blanks, fortified samples, or other controls?
- Were recoveries acceptable for the analytes reported?
- Did any pigments or co-extractives interfere with detection?
- Were the reporting limits low enough for the specification being applied?
A long analyte list cannot compensate for a poorly performing method in the tested matrix.
Multiresidue methods and selective methods
Broad multiresidue screening
A multiresidue method is designed to look for many pesticide chemicals in one analytical workflow. FDA’s Pesticide Analytical Manual describes these methods as efficient and broadly applicable, particularly when a food’s pesticide-treatment history is unknown.[1]
Modern workflows commonly combine:
- Representative sampling and homogenization.
- Extraction of residues from the sample.
- Cleanup to reduce plant-matrix interference.
- Separation by gas or liquid chromatography.
- Detection and confirmation with mass spectrometry.
- Comparison with calibration standards and quality-control samples.
FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs describes a harmonized modified QuEChERS method coupled to GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS.[2] The two instrument routes are complementary. Some analytes are more suitable for gas chromatography; others are better suited to liquid chromatography.
Selective or single-residue methods
Some pesticides are difficult to recover, separate, or detect with a broad multiresidue screen. FDA expressly notes that selective methods are sometimes needed for residues not adequately covered by its multiresidue methods.[4]
Therefore, a COA labeled “500+ pesticide screen” should not automatically be considered more complete than a smaller, well-designed program. Panel count alone does not answer:
- whether important analytes are actually included;
- whether all listed analytes have acceptable recovery in kratom powder;
- whether the laboratory reports parent chemicals, metabolites, or residue-definition combinations;
- whether separate methods are used for difficult compounds;
- whether every analyte has a reporting limit suitable for the specification.
The better question is not “How many?” but “Which compounds, using which methods, at what reporting limits, with what matrix performance?”
What QuEChERS means—and what it does not mean
QuEChERS is an acronym for “Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe.” It refers to a family of sample-extraction and cleanup approaches widely used in pesticide-residue analysis. FDA’s current laboratory training document identifies modified QuEChERS with GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS as part of its harmonized pesticide workflow.[2]
Seeing “QuEChERS” on a COA is helpful method information, but it is not proof by itself that the test was adequate. The details still matter:
- sample mass;
- extraction solvent and salts;
- cleanup sorbents;
- dilution factor;
- calibration approach;
- internal standards;
- analyte-specific recovery;
- detector and confirmation criteria;
- LOD and LOQ;
- matrix validation.
Two laboratories can both describe a method as QuEChERS while having different analyte scopes, reporting limits, quality controls, and suitability for botanical powders.
How to read the units: ppm, ppb, mg/kg, and µg/kg
Pesticide COAs commonly use mass-per-mass units.
- 1 ppm = 1 mg/kg
- 1 ppb = 1 µg/kg
- 1 ppm = 1,000 ppb
- 0.10 ppm = 0.10 mg/kg = 100 µg/kg = 100 ppb
For a solid powder, mg/kg is mathematically equivalent to parts per million by mass. Micrograms per kilogram are equivalent to parts per billion by mass.
Example 1: ppm to ppb
A COA reports a residue at 0.025 ppm.
0.025 ppm × 1,000 = 25 ppb
Example 2: mg/kg to estimated amount in a package
A hypothetical 100-gram package has a reported residue of 0.20 mg/kg.
Convert 100 grams to kilograms:
100 g ÷ 1,000 = 0.100 kg
Then multiply:
0.20 mg/kg × 0.100 kg = 0.020 mg
That equals 20 micrograms in the 100-gram package, assuming the tested result accurately represents the whole lot and the residue is evenly distributed. The calculation does not determine whether the result is legally or internally acceptable. That requires the correct specification and residue definition.
Example 3: capsule calculation
Kiody’s pure-leaf capsules contain approximately 500 mg of leaf powder per capsule. If a leaf-powder sample hypothetically reports 0.40 mg/kg of a residue:
500 mg powder = 0.0005 kg
0.40 mg/kg × 0.0005 kg = 0.0002 mg
0.0002 mg = 0.2 µg
This is a unit conversion, not a safety, serving, or compliance conclusion. A capsule result also depends on whether the tested sample was the powder before encapsulation or a representative sample of the finished capsules.
ND, LOD, LOQ, and reporting limit
These abbreviations are related but not interchangeable.
ND: not detected
“ND” generally means the laboratory did not detect the analyte at or above a stated detection or reporting threshold. The COA should define which threshold controls the ND call.
An ND result should be read as:
Not detected in this submitted sample using this method at or above the stated reporting limit.
It should not be rewritten as “pesticide-free.”
LOD: limit of detection
The limit of detection is the lowest level at which the method can distinguish an analyte signal from background under defined conditions. A value near the LOD may not be quantifiable with acceptable accuracy and precision.
LOQ: limit of quantitation
The limit of quantitation is the lowest level at which the laboratory can quantify the analyte with stated performance. The LOQ is usually higher than the LOD.
Reporting limit
The reporting limit is the threshold the laboratory uses to report a numeric result. It may equal the LOQ, but laboratories do not always use the terms identically. The COA or method should define the relationship.
Why the reporting limit can decide whether a COA is useful
Suppose an internal specification is 0.01 mg/kg, but the laboratory’s LOQ is 0.05 mg/kg. An ND result at 0.05 mg/kg does not demonstrate that the sample was below 0.01 mg/kg. The method cannot make that decision with the stated quantitation capability.
A reviewer must compare:
reporting limit ≤ applicable specification
If the reporting limit is higher than the specification, the test may be unsuitable for that decision even if the COA says ND.
EPA tolerances are pesticide-and-commodity specific
EPA explains that tolerances are maximum residue levels and that different foods can have different tolerances for the same pesticide.[3] Current tolerance and exemption information appears in 40 CFR Part 180 and is updated through the eCFR and Federal Register.[6]
Before calling a result compliant, a reviewer should identify:
- The pesticide chemical.
- The exact residue definition, including required metabolites or degradates.
- The tested commodity or legally applicable commodity grouping.
- Whether a tolerance or exemption applies.
- The current numerical tolerance and units.
- Whether the analyzed material is a raw agricultural commodity, processed commodity, extract, or finished product.
- Whether state, local, import, or customer specifications are more restrictive.
A generic “EPA limit” column is not enough when the COA does not identify the actual regulatory citation or specification source.
FDA states that it can take regulatory action when a residue exceeds an established tolerance or when a pesticide residue is found on a food for which no tolerance has been established.[7] That is why a company should not invent a universal kratom pesticide limit or copy a limit from an unrelated crop without a documented regulatory and scientific basis.
U.S. tolerances versus international MRLs
An international maximum residue limit may be useful for supplier management or market comparison, but it does not automatically replace a U.S. tolerance. A product intended for more than one country may need to satisfy multiple market-specific requirements.
A responsible COA review record should state which market and specification were used. “Meets global standards” is not a sufficiently precise decision rule.
A “pass” result needs a documented specification
A laboratory measures. A specification sets the acceptance rule. Those are different jobs.
Under 21 CFR §111.70, manufacturers operating within the dietary-supplement CGMP framework must establish component and finished-product specifications, including limits on contamination that may adulterate or lead to adulteration.[8] Section 111.75 addresses how specifications are verified and when a supplier COA may be relied upon, including supplier qualification, method descriptions, limits, actual results, documentation, and periodic reconfirmation.[9]
Even apart from a particular regulatory classification, these are valuable quality principles:
- define the limit before testing;
- document why it applies;
- use an appropriate method;
- report actual results;
- qualify suppliers rather than accepting certificates blindly;
- investigate unexpected or out-of-specification results;
- preserve the lot and sample trail.
A COA that says “Pass” without displaying the result and limit conceals the comparison a buyer needs to verify.
The 12 fields every pesticide COA should show
1. Laboratory identity
Look for the laboratory’s legal name, address, contact information, report identifier, and authorized approval.
2. Customer or submitter
The COA should show who submitted the sample. This does not prove who manufactured the product, but it supports traceability.
3. Product and matrix
“Kratom” is too broad. The report should distinguish leaf powder, pure-leaf capsules, extract powder, liquid extract, flavored product, gummy, or another matrix.
4. Lot or batch number
The tested lot must match the package or product listing. A report for a different lot is background information, not lot-specific evidence.
5. Sample dates
Useful dates include receipt, sampling, preparation, analysis, and report issuance. A report date alone does not reveal when testing occurred.
6. Sampling responsibility
The report should clarify whether the laboratory collected the sample or tested a sample supplied by the client. A laboratory cannot establish lot representativeness merely by analyzing what it received.
7. Method identification
Look for a method number or clear description, not just “pesticides.” The report should identify whether GC-MS/MS, LC-MS/MS, or additional selective methods were used.
8. Analyte list
Every pesticide included in the panel should be identifiable. “Pesticides: Pass” without a scope list is not transparent.
9. Actual result
Results should be numeric or clearly reported as ND according to a defined threshold.
10. LOD, LOQ, or reporting limit
An ND result without a threshold cannot be meaningfully compared with a specification.
11. Specification and decision
The report should show the applicable limit and pass/fail conclusion—or clearly state that the laboratory is only reporting results and that disposition belongs to the client.
12. Amendments and qualifications
Review footnotes, deviations, dilution notes, analyte exceptions, matrix interferences, subcontracted tests, and amended-report history.
Why the panel list matters more than the marketing number
A panel advertised as “400 pesticides” may contain:
- parent compounds;
- separate isomers;
- metabolites;
- degradates;
- residue-definition components;
- industrial chemicals included in the same screen.
Another lab may group some of those under one regulatory residue definition. The panel counts may differ even if their practical coverage overlaps.
Ask for the exact scope with analyte-specific reporting limits. A panel should also be reviewed against supplier geography and agricultural history. A risk-based program may add selective testing when a known compound is poorly covered by the broad screen.
Quality-control information worth requesting
Consumer-facing COAs are often condensed. A qualified reviewer may need the underlying data package or method summary. Useful quality-control elements include:
- method blank;
- laboratory control sample;
- matrix spike and duplicate;
- surrogate or internal-standard recovery;
- calibration verification;
- continuing calibration checks;
- retention-time agreement;
- confirmation-ion ratios or transitions;
- dilution integrity;
- carryover checks;
- analyte stability;
- measurement uncertainty or decision rule near a limit.
FDA’s pesticide laboratory training program includes fortified samples and emphasizes confirmation and data packages capable of supporting regulatory action.[2] A retail COA need not display every chromatogram, but the laboratory should be able to explain how identifications, quantitation, and quality-control acceptance were established.
Five worked COA scenarios
The following examples are fictional and are for reading practice only.
Scenario 1: Transparent ND panel
The COA lists 220 analytes. Each shows ND, with analyte-specific LOQs ranging from 0.005 to 0.050 mg/kg. The method lists modified QuEChERS, GC-MS/MS, and LC-MS/MS. The product, lot, sample dates, and client are clear.
Interpretation: Stronger transparency than a one-line pass. The reviewer must still confirm that the analyte scope and LOQs are appropriate for the specifications and that the sample represents the lot.
Scenario 2: ND above the acceptance limit
The specification for a selected residue is 0.010 mg/kg. The COA reports ND with an LOQ of 0.050 mg/kg.
Interpretation: The method cannot demonstrate compliance with a 0.010 mg/kg specification. Request a more sensitive method or an appropriately justified decision process.
Scenario 3: Numeric detection below a documented limit
The result is 0.03 mg/kg, the LOQ is 0.01 mg/kg, and the documented applicable specification is 0.10 mg/kg.
Interpretation: The residue was detected and quantified below the stated specification. Do not rewrite this as ND or pesticide-free. Confirm the correct commodity, residue definition, and current legal or internal limit.
Scenario 4: Pass without scope
The COA shows “Pesticides — Pass,” but it provides no analyte list, method, units, results, or reporting limits.
Interpretation: Insufficient for meaningful review. Request the full report and panel scope.
Scenario 5: Powder report attached to an extract
An extract product links to a pesticide report for the source leaf powder. The extract’s lot number is different, and no manufacturing linkage is shown.
Interpretation: The powder result may inform supplier qualification, but it does not automatically establish the extract’s finished-product status. Processing can change concentrations and introduce a different sampling problem. Request the manufacturing link, mass-balance rationale, and risk-based finished-product evidence.
Eighteen pesticide COA red flags
- The report says only “Pass.”
- No analyte list is available.
- ND appears without a defined reporting limit.
- The LOQ is higher than the stated specification.
- The product matrix is missing or inaccurate.
- The lot on the COA does not match the package.
- The method is described only as “internal.”
- GC-MS/MS or LC-MS/MS is listed, but panel scope is absent.
- A large panel count is advertised without analyte-specific limits.
- One universal limit is applied to every pesticide without explanation.
- A tolerance from an unrelated commodity is copied as the kratom limit.
- An international MRL is presented as U.S. law without analysis.
- A raw-leaf result is used for an unrelated finished extract lot.
- The report omits sample receipt and analysis dates.
- An amended report does not explain what changed.
- Matrix interference or failed recovery is hidden in fine print.
- The seller calls an ND result “pesticide-free.”
- The pesticide COA is used to imply microbiological, alkaloid, or legal compliance.
A proposed 26-field Kiody pesticide review record
For internal review, Kiody could maintain the following fields without publishing confidential supplier information:
- Internal product name
- Product form and matrix
- Supplier
- Country or region of origin, if documented
- Supplier lot
- Kiody lot
- Manufacturing linkage between lots
- Sample collection party
- Sampling plan reference
- Sample receipt date
- Analysis date
- Report date
- Laboratory name
- Accreditation scope reviewed
- Report identifier
- Method identifier
- GC-MS/MS scope
- LC-MS/MS scope
- Selective-method scope
- Analyte count and exact panel version
- Analyte-specific LOD/LOQ available
- Applicable specification source
- Detected residues and results
- Quality-control exceptions
- Reviewer, disposition, and approval date
- Corrective action, retest, or supplier follow-up reference
The record should link to—not replace—the original signed laboratory report.
Responsible product-quality communication
Good quality communication stays within the evidence.
Prefer:
“The listed pesticide residues were not detected in the submitted lot sample at or above the laboratory’s stated reporting limits.”
Avoid:
“100% pesticide-free,” “chemical-free,” or “guaranteed safe.”
The first statement is bounded by the panel, sample, method, and reporting limits. The second set of statements makes claims the COA cannot establish.
Pesticide quality is also not a medical benefit. A passing report does not mean a product treats, prevents, or reduces the risk of any disease.
Current federal 7-OH note: pesticide results do not establish legal status
Pesticide testing and alkaloid/legal review answer different questions.
As of August 30, 2026, the federal 7-OH threshold remains proposed. The proposal describes a 0.050% dry-weight threshold for botanical material and additional 0.050% or 1 mg triggers for specified alternative articles. HHS extended the comment deadline to September 10, 2026.[10][11]
A separate DEA order took effect August 26, 2026, temporarily placing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in Schedule I through August 26, 2028 unless extended or made permanent.[12] DOJ has announced enforcement discretion for only incidental trace mitragynine pseudoindoxyl in a product otherwise consistent with botanical kratom, but states that this is not a legal exemption and does not cover MGM-15, MGM-16, or manufactured, concentrated, fortified, or intentionally added mitragynine pseudoindoxyl.[13]
Therefore:
- a pesticide “pass” does not establish compliance with a 7-OH threshold;
- a low 7-OH result does not establish pesticide quality;
- MP, MGM-15, and MGM-16 require separate controlled-substance review;
- state and local rules may be stricter or may prohibit botanical leaf entirely;
- Kiody does not sell concentrated 7-OH.
Frequently asked questions
1. Does ND mean pesticide-free?
No. ND means the analyte was not detected according to the laboratory’s stated method and threshold. It does not cover untested pesticides or amounts below the reporting capability.
2. How many pesticides should a kratom panel include?
There is no universal number that proves adequacy. The right scope depends on regulatory requirements, supplier risk, origin, agricultural practices, matrix performance, method capability, and selective-method needs.
3. Is a 500-analyte panel automatically better than a 200-analyte panel?
No. Compare the exact analytes, residue definitions, LOQs, matrix recovery, quality controls, and specification fitness. Panel count is a marketing shorthand, not a complete quality assessment.
4. What is the best instrument for pesticide testing?
There is no single best instrument for every residue. GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS cover different chemical properties and are often used together. Some analytes require selective methods.
5. What does QuEChERS mean on a COA?
It identifies an extraction and cleanup approach commonly used for multiresidue testing. It does not, by itself, prove complete analyte coverage or acceptable performance in kratom.
6. Are ppm and mg/kg the same?
For solid-product mass measurements, yes: 1 ppm equals 1 mg/kg. One ppb equals 1 µg/kg.
7. Can a result be detected but still pass?
Potentially, if the result is below a correctly identified applicable tolerance or internal specification. The detection should still be reported honestly, and the reviewer must verify the correct commodity and residue definition.
8. What if the COA lists no EPA tolerance?
The buyer should request the specification source and regulatory rationale. Do not assume that a limit from another plant commodity applies.
9. Does organic certification replace pesticide testing?
No. Certification and residue testing are different evidence. Certification addresses a production and handling standard; testing measures selected residues in a sample under a defined method.
10. Can washing remove pesticide residues from kratom leaf?
The outcome depends on the chemical, application, plant surface, timing, and processing. A general washing claim cannot replace finished-ingredient testing or supplier controls.
11. Does extraction remove pesticides?
Not necessarily. Processing may reduce, retain, or concentrate a residue depending on its chemistry and the extraction process. Source-leaf results should not automatically be assigned to a finished extract without a documented rationale.
12. Can a supplier COA be accepted without independent confirmation?
Within the Part 111 framework, reliance on a supplier COA requires supplier qualification, confirmation of reliability, method and limit information, actual results, documentation, quality-control approval, and periodic reconfirmation.[9]
13. Should every finished lot be pesticide tested?
The testing plan should be risk-based, documented, statistically sound where sampling is used, and consistent with applicable law and specifications. Supplier qualification does not eliminate the need for verification appropriate to the risk.
14. Does a pesticide COA prove the product is safe?
No. It provides evidence about listed pesticide residues in a sample. Safety and quality involve other hazards, product composition, use conditions, legal status, interactions, and individual factors.
15. Does a pesticide pass prove botanical identity?
No. Botanical identity requires separate examination. A clean sample of the wrong plant would still be the wrong ingredient.
16. Does a pesticide pass prove the product is legal in every state?
No. Federal, state, and local laws may regulate age, product form, alkaloid composition, labeling, sales, possession, and shipping independently of pesticide results.
A seven-step consumer review
- Match the product and lot.
- Identify the tested matrix.
- Find the exact analyte panel.
- Check the method and instrument routes.
- Compare ND and numeric results with analyte-specific LOQs.
- Identify the documented specification and market.
- Keep pesticide evidence separate from identity, microbiology, heavy metals, solvents, alkaloids, and legal status.
The Kiody standard in one sentence
Pesticide testing should be lot-linked, matrix-appropriate, analyte-specific, method-transparent, sensitive enough for the decision, and communicated without turning a limited laboratory result into an unlimited safety claim.
Sources and citations
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Pesticide Analytical Manual.
- FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs, ORA Laboratory Manual, Volume IV, Section 5 — Pesticides Analysis, revised November 7, 2023.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulation of Pesticide Residues on Food, updated June 17, 2026.
- FDA, Pesticides, updated December 22, 2025.
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 21 CFR §111.320 — Laboratory methods.
- EPA, How to Search for Pesticide Tolerances in the Code of Federal Regulations, updated September 16, 2025.
- FDA, FY 2023 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report announcement, December 22, 2025.
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 21 CFR §111.70 — Specifications.
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 21 CFR §111.75 — Determining whether specifications are met.
- HHS, Temporary Placement of 7-Hydroxymitragynine Above a Specified Threshold in Schedule I; Request for Information, July 6, 2026.
- HHS, 7-OH comment-period extension, August 26, 2026.
- DEA, Temporary placement of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in Schedule I, effective August 26, 2026.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Department Announces Emergency Scheduling of Three Potent Opioid Compounds, August 25, 2026.
- FDA, FDA and Kratom, accessed August 30, 2026.
- USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Pesticide Data Program 2024 Annual Summary, published December 2025.