Selecting sh-Octapeptide-4 for a cosmetic project requires more than recognizing the INCI name. Formulators and buyers need to confirm what commercial grade is being offered, how inventory functions and supplier positioning relate to the intended formula, whether documentation supports the target market, and whether the supplier can keep identity and quality consistent from sample to scale-up.
This guide combines EU CosIng inventory language with the publicly stated specification for the Green Stone Swiss product page grade. Product-page values are starting points for evaluation. The page itself states that images and information are for reference only and that actual product details may vary, so controlled TDS, SDS, specification, and COA documents remain mandatory before approval.
What is sh-Octapeptide-4?
In the European Commission’s CosIng database, SH-OCTAPEPTIDE-4 is described as a recombinant human peptide produced synthetically to be identical to the protein enkephalin. CosIng states that it contains eight amino acids consisting of glycine, histidine, leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, and tyrosine. CosIng lists functions that include anti-seborrheic, antioxidant, chelating, reducing, and skin protecting.
The commercial product page for sh-Octapeptide-4 lists:
- INCI Name: sh-Octapeptide-4
- Common Name (page): MOTS-c, Mitochondrial-derived Peptide
- Appearance: white to off-white powder
- Purity: ≥99%
- Solubility: water soluble
- Origin: China
The “sh-” prefix in cosmetic peptide nomenclature signals a synthetic human (recombinant) peptide identity in INCI practice. Purchasing still requires grade-level confirmation: a neat powder, a solution, and a multi-peptide blend are not automatically interchangeable.
Resolve naming before you compare quotes
The product page uses MOTS-c as a common name and positions the ingredient around metabolic and mitochondrial support. CosIng describes an enkephalin-related recombinant octapeptide. Those naming frameworks are not automatically equivalent. If identity, naming, or document details matter to your project, request the current TDS, specification, and COA through an inquiry and confirm the INCI, common name, and assay basis against the quotation. Do not treat a marketing common name as proof of chemical identity by itself.
Before comparing offers, ask each supplier to state:
- the trade name and approved INCI declaration;
- whether the material is a neat substance, solution, dispersion, or blend;
- the assay basis used for content reporting;
- the grade, manufacturing site, and country of origin;
- the specification and analytical methods used for release;
- the exact relationship between the quoted material and the supplied TDS, SDS, and COA.
Separate inventory functions, supplier positioning, and finished-product claims
Keep four evidence levels separate:
- Inventory definition: how CosIng names and classifies SH-OCTAPEPTIDE-4.
- Supplier-grade data: what the commercial page or controlled documents state for the offered powder grade.
- Formulation evidence: what was demonstrated in the actual vehicle and packaging.
- Consumer evidence: what a controlled study showed for the finished product.
The product page positions sh-Octapeptide-4 for cellular anti-aging and revitalizing concepts, with suggested uses in revitalizing serums, cellular-repair creams, overnight recovery masks, and anti-fatigue eye creams. Treat those statements as supplier positioning for concept development. They are not CosIng inventory guarantees and are not finished-product performance proof.
An evidence-led project should not rewrite supplier positioning into therapeutic claims, guaranteed ATP or mitochondrial outcomes, or universal safety statements.
Commercial grade snapshot from the product page
The following values are taken from the live product page as a public starting point. Because the page notes that information is for reference only, treat them as provisional and confirm current details by inquiry before purchase or scale-up:
| Attribute | Product-page statement |
|---|---|
| INCI | sh-Octapeptide-4 |
| Common name | MOTS-c, Mitochondrial-derived Peptide |
| Appearance | White to off-white powder |
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Solubility | Water soluble |
| Stability | Typical cosmetic pH 4.0–7.0; avoid high temperatures and strong oxidizing agents |
| Suggested use level | 0.5%–2% |
| Addition guidance | Cool-down phase, below 45°C (113°F) |
| Origin | China |
| MOQ examples | 1 g / 10 g / 1 kg |
| Sample policy | Free sample; buyer pays shipping |
| Payment terms | T/T 100% in advance |
| Full TDS / MSDS / COA | Available upon request for verified business inquiries |
When is this grade worth evaluating?
It is worth a structured evaluation when:
- you need an INCI-identified peptide for exploratory anti-aging, revitalizing, or skin-protecting concept work;
- the page-stated powder form, water solubility, and process window fit your chassis plan;
- quality reviewers can obtain controlled documents before sampling decisions become purchase decisions;
- the supplier can support sample-to-scale continuity for the quoted grade.
It is usually not ready for commercial commitment when:
- the common name, INCI, and analytical identity have not been reconciled;
- assay basis, impurities, or composition remain unclear on the COA/specification;
- target-market status has not been checked for the intended sales countries;
- finished-product claims depend on evidence that has not been reviewed;
- no plan exists to test stability and compatibility in the actual formula.
What should formulators evaluate first?
Use the product-page guidance as a starting hypothesis, then verify it in the finished formula:
- Identity and concentration: confirm what is being dosed and on what assay basis.
- Physical form: the page describes a white to off-white powder; confirm whether the shipment is neat powder or another form.
- Use level: page suggestion is 0.5%–2%; optimize against your claim, cost, and stability targets.
- Process exposure: page guidance is cool-down addition below 45°C; validate hold times and shear at lab and pilot scale.
- pH window: page stability range is pH 4.0–7.0; test the complete formula, including temporary manufacturing excursions.
- Compatibility: screen oxidants, reductants, metals/chelators, surfactants, preservatives, botanicals, colors, fragrances, and other actives.
- Stability and packaging: include physical, chemical, microbiological, and packaging assessments under justified conditions.
For a deeper formulation checklist, see sh-Octapeptide-4: Stability, Compatibility & Testing.
How should quality and regulatory teams review the material?
A visually acceptable powder is not enough to establish identity or batch quality. The agreed specification should define the attributes that matter to the purchased grade, while the COA should report results for the actual batch.
At minimum, compare the page-stated appearance and purity claims with the controlled specification and batch COA. Then review:
- unambiguous product and batch identification;
- identity tests appropriate to the peptide grade;
- purity/assay definitions, units, and methods;
- impurity, residual solvent, microbiological, or elemental controls where justified;
- storage, retest, or expiry information from SDS/TDS;
- change-control and traceability expectations.
CosIng listing supports ingredient inventory identification in the EU context. It does not by itself prove finished-product compliance or authorize every claim. Confirm current requirements for each sales market with qualified reviewers.
How do you compare suppliers without confusing grades?
Price should be compared only after identity and quality expectations are aligned. For this product page grade, start from the published specification snapshot, then insist on the same attributes on the quotation, TDS, SDS, specification, and COA.
Ask:
- Can you provide the current TDS, SDS, specification, and representative COA for this sh-Octapeptide-4 grade?
- How do you confirm identity and report the ≥99% purity claim?
- How does the page common name MOTS-c map to the INCI and analytical identity?
- Which tests are performed on every batch, and which are periodic?
- How are methods, specifications, and manufacturing changes communicated?
- What sample, packaging, MOQ, lead-time, and retest or expiry conditions apply to the quoted lot?
A practical next step
Start with a document review before requesting commercial-scale quantities. Compare the supplier’s specification with your formulation, safety, regulatory, and claim requirements. Then test a representative sample in the actual formula and intended packaging.
To evaluate the sh-Octapeptide-4 grade, send an inquiry for the current specification, TDS, SDS, representative COA, formulation guidance, and sample. Use that reply—not the public summary alone—to lock purchasing and claim decisions. Confirm market and claim requirements with your own qualified reviewers before launch.
