How We Test Our Shilajit
- Home
- Shilajit Guide
- How we test
Testing & quality
How we test our Shilajit
Shilajit is one of the most adulterated supplements on the market. It's also one of the most tested by serious buyers. We think that's the right instinct, and we've designed our testing programme to hold up to scrutiny, not just to pass it.
Every origin we stock is independently tested by EkotechLAB Marek Klein S.K.A., a specialist analytical chemistry laboratory based in Gdansk, Poland. Their heavy metals testing carries PCA accreditation (AB 1755) under the ILAC-MRA framework, an international mutual recognition arrangement covering laboratories in over 100 countries. In practical terms, this means our heavy metals results are recognised as equivalent to those produced by accredited labs anywhere in the world.
What follows is a record of the laboratory, analytical methods and current results for each One Life Foods Shilajit origin.
Contents
Why we chose EkotechLAB
Most supplement brands that test at all use one of the large international testing networks. Eurofins is the best known: by its own account a network of hundreds of laboratories across dozens of countries, handling very high volumes across food, pharmaceutical, environmental and consumer testing. It's a serious operation and we're not suggesting otherwise.
But a laboratory's name on a report doesn't tell you what you actually need to know, and this is where we think customers are misled by an entirely reasonable assumption. A familiar logo gets treated as a guarantee. What determines whether a result means anything is narrower than that: which analytical method was used, whether that specific test is accredited, and which site performed the work. All three are printed on the report. None of them are implied by the name at the top of it.
Fulvic acid is the clearest example. There's a reference method, ISO 19822:2018, aligned with International Humic Substances Society standards. There are also titration-based methods that are cheaper, faster, and systematically return much higher figures for the same material. Both can be run by reputable laboratories. So if a Shilajit certificate doesn't name ISO 19822:2018 on its method line, the percentage on it isn't comparable to the percentages on this page, whoever produced it. That's the check worth making, and it applies to our certificates exactly as much as to anyone else's.
We chose EkotechLAB because they're specialist analytical chemists rather than a generalist high-throughput operation. The analyses are carried out in their own facility, as their certificates state. Accredited methods are used where accreditation exists for them, and where it doesn't, the certificate says so plainly, which you can see for yourself on the mercury results further down this page. And when we ask a question about methodology or interpretation, we get a direct answer from people who ran the analysis.
That matters when you're trying to understand what a result actually means, not just whether it passes.
Applying that standard to ourselves
If the test is read the method line, we should be read the same way. Every EkotechLAB analysis on this page, the humic substances, minerals, heavy metals, solvents, PAHs and microbiology, was performed in their own laboratory.
Mycotoxin screening is the exception. We commission it through Nuscana Biotechnika Laboratoryjna, and their reports state that the analysis is subcontracted onward to a laboratory accredited under AB 1095. That's still an accredited method with the accreditation number printed on the document, which is the part that matters. But it's subcontracted, and we'd be doing exactly what we've just warned against if we let the name on the letterhead stand in for the arrangement behind it.
The analytical methods used for our results
Before you look at any results, it's worth understanding that not all Shilajit testing is equal, and that the method chosen to measure humic substances can change a reported figure dramatically.
Many people assume fulvic acid percentage is the headline measure of Shilajit quality. We think that framing is too narrow. The most meaningful picture of a Shilajit comes from reading the full spectrum of what has been measured: humic acids, fulvic acids, the mineral and trace element profile, and what the testing doesn't find as much as what it does. A single high fulvic acid figure tells you one thing. A complete analytical profile tells you considerably more.
That said, how fulvic acid is measured matters enormously. We use an analytical method aligned with the standards of the International Humic Substances Society (IHSS), implemented under ISO 19822:2018. This is the reference method used by the scientific community for humic substance analysis. It's precise, reproducible, and internationally recognised.
Many suppliers use titration-based methods instead. Titration measures anything that behaves chemically like a fulvic acid, including compounds that aren't fulvic acids at all. The result is a systematically inflated figure. A product tested by titration might report 80% fulvic acid. The same product tested under ISO 19822:2018 might return 40%. These numbers aren't comparable, and customers who try to compare fulvic acid percentages across brands without knowing the testing method used aren't comparing like with like.
The short version
Our results are lower than some you'll see advertised. That isn't a weakness. It reflects honest measurement.
What our testing programme covers
The full-spectrum picture
The ratio of humic to fulvic acids isn't just a quality measure. It's a characteristic of the resin itself, reflecting both the geology of the source region and the degree of processing applied to the raw material.
A higher fulvic acid percentage can indicate a more purified product. But aggressive purification and filtration to concentrate fulvic acids will typically reduce humic acid content and strip out a proportion of the naturally occurring mineral profile. Our Hunza results illustrate this clearly: 64.13% fulvic acid, but only 1.16% humic acid and a comparatively modest mineral profile. Compare that to our Kashmiri at 18.59% humic and 44.87% fulvic, or the Siberian Altai at 5.8% humic and 41.19% fulvic, both of which retain richer humic and mineral profiles alongside their fulvic acid content.
Whether that trade-off is desirable is an open scientific question. Our view is that the full-spectrum composition of the resin, humic acids, fulvic acids, and the mineral matrix together, is likely more meaningful than any single figure in isolation. We present the complete picture and let you decide.
Elemental profile as geographic fingerprint
The mineral composition of a Shilajit sample is one of the strongest indicators of its geographic origin. Different mountain ranges have fundamentally different geology, and the organic matter formed within them carries a distinct mineral signature as a result.
Strontium levels are characteristically elevated in Shilajit from sedimentary limestone regions because strontium substitutes for calcium in carbonate minerals. Our Kashmiri sample returned 364 mg/kg strontium, the highest of the four origins we stock, and consistent with the limestone-dominant sedimentary basin of the Kashmir Valley. Iron in our Siberian Altai, at 923 mg/kg, is the highest of the four and reflects the ancient iron-rich Precambrian rock formations of the region.
Siberian and Mongolian Altai share a mountain range, yet their profiles diverge. Mongolian runs higher in sodium, at 867 mg/kg against 570. Siberian runs higher in phosphorus, aluminium and manganese. The southern Mongolian section carries more sedimentary and volcanic influence than the Precambrian formations further north, and the mineral profiles reflect that.
A mineral profile that's inconsistent with the claimed origin is a meaningful red flag. One that's consistent with it isn't proof of authenticity on its own, but it's a supporting data point that an adulterated or mislabelled product would struggle to replicate convincingly.
Heavy metals
Lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, silver, chromium, copper, nickel and vanadium are tested across our range, though the exact panel varies by origin and certificate. Our results are well within safe limits across all origins. The tables below show what was measured on each.
It's worth noting that trace arsenic levels, 0.7 mg/kg in our Siberian Altai, are geologically expected and not a cause for concern. The absence of any detectable arsenic in a product claiming Siberian origin would actually be the more suspicious result.
Mycotoxins
Mycotoxins are toxic compounds produced by certain moulds. They can be present in natural organic materials where moisture or inadequate handling during harvest or storage creates conditions for fungal growth. We test for aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2, ochratoxin A, deoxynivalenol, and zearalenone on origins where the risk profile warrants it. All results have returned below detection limits. We're working towards extending mycotoxin screening across all origins as part of our ongoing quality programme.
Solvent residues (Siberian Altai)
One of the most common adulteration methods in the Shilajit market involves using organic solvents to extract or artificially concentrate fulvic acid content. We test for seven solvent compounds in our Siberian Altai. All returned below 10 mg/kg, the limit of detection for the method used. Clean solvent results are evidence of a genuine resin extraction process, not a solvent-assisted one.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Siberian Altai)
PAHs including benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene and chrysene can enter Shilajit through improper drying or heating during processing. All four returned below 0.2 mg/kg. These results are a processing integrity marker as much as a safety one.
Microbiology (Siberian Altai)
Coliforms, Salmonella, coagulase-positive staphylococci, and yeast and mould counts were all tested. Salmonella wasn't detected. All other counts returned below 10 cfu/g.
Water content
Water content affects concentration. A lower water content indicates a denser, more concentrated resin. Across the three origins where it was measured, our results range from 2.57% in Hunza to 7.42% in Mongolian Altai. Water content wasn't included in the Siberian Altai analysis. A drier, firmer resin is sometimes mistaken by customers for a lower quality product. In fact, the opposite is generally true.
How to read the numbers below
Laboratory certificates report some elements as a percentage and others in mg/kg, depending on how much is present. That mixture is easy to misread. 0.17% is 1,700 mg/kg, so an element quoted in mg/kg can look larger than one quoted as a percentage that's actually several times more abundant.
We've kept each certificate's original figure and added a converted mg/kg column beside it, then sorted every table from most to least abundant. If you're comparing our numbers against another brand's, convert everything to one unit first. It's the single easiest way to be misled by a certificate that's telling the truth.
Why mercury is marked as not accredited
On the Kashmiri, Mongolian Altai and Hunza heavy metals certificates, ten elements are marked as accredited and one isn't. Mercury was measured alongside the others on the same multi-element method, but the certificate marks that particular determination NA, meaning EkotechLAB doesn't hold accreditation for mercury by that route.
Mercury is the difficult element for this kind of analysis. It's volatile, it can be lost during sample digestion, and it leaves memory effects in the instrument that carry between samples. For those reasons it's normally measured by a dedicated technique, such as cold vapour atomic absorption or thermal decomposition, rather than as one line on a general multi-element panel.
What that means for you: the mercury figure is a real measurement, produced by the same laboratory from the same digested sample, and it came back below the method's working range. It just doesn't carry the ILAC-MRA recognition the other ten results do. We'd rather show it and label it than quietly drop it or let the accredited heading cover it. We're asking EkotechLAB about adding a dedicated accredited mercury determination to future batches.
Why iron appears twice with different values
On some origins, iron and manganese appear in both the elemental profile and the accredited heavy metals certificate, with slightly different figures. These are separate analyses run under different methods and scopes, so small differences are expected. Where they differ, the accredited heavy metals result is the one to rely on for safety, and the elemental profile is the one to read for composition.
Our results by origin
Siberian Altai
Tested by EkotechLAB, Gdansk, Poland. Analysis Reports S/804/25, completed November and December 2025.
The Siberian Altai sits on some of the oldest exposed geology on earth, ancient Precambrian and Palaeozoic rock formations that have produced a Shilajit with the broadest mineral spectrum of any origin we stock. The testing programme for this origin is our most comprehensive. Across two analysis reports it covers humic substances, twenty-two elements, solvent residues, PAHs and microbiology.
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Fulvic acids hydrophobic fraction | 41.19% m/m |
| Humic acids | 5.8% m/m |
| Compound | Method | As reported | mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potassium (K) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | 6.81% m/m | 68,100 |
| Calcium (Ca) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | 3.39% m/m | 33,900 |
| Magnesium (Mg) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | 0.45% m/m | 4,500 |
| Phosphorus (P) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | 0.17% m/m | 1,700 |
| Aluminium (Al) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | 0.12% m/m | 1,200 |
| Iron (Fe) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | 923 mg/kg | 923 |
| Sodium (Na) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | 570 mg/kg | 570 |
| Manganese (Mn) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | 64 mg/kg | 64 |
| Boron (B) | ICP-MS | 60 mg/kg | 60 |
| Zinc (Zn) | ICP-MS | 21 mg/kg | 21 |
| Cobalt (Co) | PN EN ISO 11885:2009 | <20 mg/kg | <20 |
| Copper (Cu) | ICP-MS | 9 mg/kg | 9 |
| Lithium (Li) | ICP-MS | 6 mg/kg | 6 |
| Nickel (Ni) | ICP-MS | 5 mg/kg | 5 |
| Chromium (Cr) | ICP-MS | 4 mg/kg | 4 |
| Vanadium (V) | ICP-MS | 2 mg/kg | 2 |
| Zirconium (Zr) | ICP-MS | 1 mg/kg | 1 |
| Selenium (Se) | ICP-MS | <1 mg/kg | <1 |
Eighteen elements here, plus the four heavy metals below, across the two S/804/25 analysis reports. Potassium and calcium dominate by a wide margin, which the certificate's percentage figures make easy to miss.
A worked example of why method matters
Six of the elements above were measured twice. In the November analysis, under PN EN ISO 11885:2009, chromium, copper, lithium, nickel, vanadium and zirconium all returned the same result: less than 20 mg/kg. That method simply can't resolve anything below that threshold, so six different elements produced one identical, uninformative figure.
We commissioned a second analysis by ICP-MS, which is far more sensitive. The same six elements returned 4, 9, 6, 5, 2 and 1 mg/kg. The resin hadn't changed. Only the instrument had.
This is the point we make throughout this site, using our own certificates: a number without its method attached tells you very little. Cobalt is the one element we haven't yet re-run by ICP-MS, which is why it still reads <20 mg/kg rather than a specific figure. We'll update it when we do.
The iron content of 923 mg/kg is notably high and consistent with the ancient iron-rich rock of the Siberian Altai region. It's the highest iron result of the four origins we stock, and the breadth of the profile, twenty-two elements in total, reflects the geological complexity of the source formation.
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Lead (Pb) | <0.2 mg/kg |
| Cadmium (Cd) | <0.2 mg/kg |
| Mercury (Hg) | <0.2 mg/kg |
| Arsenic (As) | 0.7 mg/kg |
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Methanol | <10 mg/kg |
| Pentane | <10 mg/kg |
| Ethanol | <10 mg/kg |
| Acetone | <10 mg/kg |
| Isopropanol | <10 mg/kg |
| Hexane | <10 mg/kg |
| Heptane | <10 mg/kg |
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Benzo[a]pyrene | <0.2 mg/kg |
| Benzo[a]anthracene | <0.2 mg/kg |
| Benzo[b]fluoranthene | <0.2 mg/kg |
| Chrysene | <0.2 mg/kg |
| Compound | Method | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Coliforms | PN-ISO 4832:2007 | <10 cfu/g |
| Salmonella spp. | PN-ISO 6579-1:2017-04+A1:2020-09 | Not detected in 10 g |
| Staphylococcus (coagulase-positive) | PN-EN ISO 6888-2:2022-03 | <10 cfu/g |
| Yeast and mould | PN-ISO 7954:1999 (Wz) | <10 cfu/g |
Laboratory-recorded sample condition on receipt: Compliant
Hunza (Gilgit-Baltistan, Karakoram Range)
Tested by EkotechLAB, Gdansk, Poland. Certificate S/CL/63b/2024 aR for heavy metals and Certificate S/CL/63b/2024 for water content, both completed 31 January 2024. Analysis Report S/75c/24 for humic substances and minerals, completed 27 February 2024. Mycotoxin screening arranged by Nuscana Biotechnika Laboratoryjna, report Ł/0/01/2024/5931/F/2, completed 5 February 2024.
Hunza Shilajit originates from the Karakoram range in Gilgit-Baltistan, one of the most geologically distinct mountain systems on earth, dominated by metamorphic and igneous rock including granite, gneiss and schist. The mineral signature of this origin reflects that geology: relatively lower calcium and sodium than the sedimentary Kashmir origin, and a mineral profile that's characteristically consistent with Karakoram geology.
The fulvic acid concentration of 64.13% under ISO 19822:2018 is the highest of any origin we stock. A high fulvic acid figure with a very low humic acid figure (1.16%) and a comparatively modest mineral profile suggests a more purified resin, one in which the purification process has concentrated fulvic acids at the partial expense of humic acids and some mineral content. If fulvic acid concentration is your primary consideration, this is our highest. If you value the full-spectrum composition of a less processed resin, the Kashmiri or Siberian Altai may suit you better. We think it's important to say that plainly.
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Fulvic acids hydrophobic fraction | 64.13% w/w |
| Humic acids | 1.16% w/w |
| Compound | Method | As reported | mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potassium (K) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 0.98% w/w | 9,800 |
| Sodium (Na) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 0.46% w/w | 4,600 |
| Calcium (Ca) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 0.40% w/w | 4,000 |
| Magnesium (Mg) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 0.28% w/w | 2,800 |
| Phosphorus (P) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 134 mg/kg | 134 |
| Iron (Fe) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 115 mg/kg | 115 |
| Strontium (Sr) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 40 mg/kg | 40 |
| Boron (B) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 24 mg/kg | 24 |
| Aluminium (Al) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 20 mg/kg | 20 |
| Manganese (Mn) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 19 mg/kg | 19 |
| Barium (Ba) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 3 mg/kg | 3 |
| Zinc (Zn) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 2 mg/kg | 2 |
| Nickel (Ni) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 1 mg/kg | 1 |
| Copper (Cu) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | <1 mg/kg | <1 |
Fourteen elements. Note how much smaller the trace fraction is here than in the Siberian Altai profile once the percentages are converted, which is what a more heavily purified resin looks like.
| Compound | Accredited | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Silver, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, vanadium, zinc | Yes | Below 4 mg/kg |
| Mercury (Hg) | No | Below 4 mg/kg |
| Iron (Fe) | Yes | 108 mg/kg |
| Manganese (Mn) | Yes | 27 mg/kg |
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Aflatoxin B1 | <0.05 µg/kg |
| Aflatoxin B2 | <0.050 µg/kg |
| Aflatoxin G1 | <0.05 µg/kg |
| Aflatoxin G2 | <0.050 µg/kg |
| Sum of aflatoxins B+G | <0.05 µg/kg |
| Ochratoxin A | <0.5 µg/kg |
| Deoxynivalenol | <60 µg/kg |
| Zearalenone | <5 µg/kg |
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Water content | 2.57% w/w |
The lowest of the three origins where water content was measured, indicating a dense, concentrated resin.
Laboratory-recorded sample condition on receipt: Correct
Kashmiri
Tested by EkotechLAB, Gdansk, Poland. Analysis Report S/963b/23, Certificate S/CL/63c/2024 aR for heavy metals (PCA accredited AB 1755, ILAC-MRA) and Certificate S/CL/63c/2024 for water content. Mycotoxin screening arranged by Nuscana Biotechnika Laboratoryjna, report Ł/0/04/2026/5931/F/1. Sample received 13 April 2026, all analyses completed 1 May 2026. The S/963b/23 and S/CL/63c/2024 numbers are order references and do not indicate the analysis year.
The Kashmir Valley sits within a sedimentary basin formed from ancient limestone and sandstone deposited over millions of years. The organic matter that forms Shilajit in this region carries the geochemical signature of those carbonate-rich formations, most visibly in the strontium content.
Strontium substitutes for calcium in carbonate minerals and is therefore characteristically elevated in Shilajit from limestone-dominant geological environments. Our Kashmiri sample returned 364 mg/kg strontium, the highest of any origin we stock, and consistent with what you'd expect from a genuine Kashmir Valley source. This is one of the clearest examples of how mineral data functions as a geographic fingerprint rather than simply a quality metric.
The humic to fulvic ratio of this origin, 18.59% humic against 44.87% fulvic, suggests a less aggressively processed resin that retains a fuller spectrum of humic substances alongside its fulvic acid content.
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Fulvic acids hydrophobic fraction | 44.87% w/w |
| Humic acids | 18.59% w/w |
| Compound | Method | As reported | mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potassium (K) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 5.32% w/w | 53,200 |
| Calcium (Ca) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 2.85% w/w | 28,500 |
| Magnesium (Mg) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 1.63% w/w | 16,300 |
| Sodium (Na) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 0.73% w/w | 7,300 |
| Strontium (Sr) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 364 mg/kg | 364 |
| Boron (B) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 218 mg/kg | 218 |
| Iron (Fe) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 141 mg/kg | 141 |
| Phosphorus (P) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 117 mg/kg | 117 |
| Manganese (Mn) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 33 mg/kg | 33 |
| Zinc (Zn) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 7 mg/kg | 7 |
| Barium (Ba) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 7 mg/kg | 7 |
Eleven elements, the shortest panel of the four. The strontium and boron results are the ones that carry the regional signature.
The boron content of 218 mg/kg is notably high, consistent with the sedimentary geology of the Kashmir region, and the highest boron figure of our four origins.
| Compound | Accredited | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Silver, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, vanadium | Yes | Below 4 mg/kg |
| Mercury (Hg) | No | Below 4 mg/kg |
| Iron (Fe) | Yes | 101 mg/kg |
| Manganese (Mn) | Yes | 26 mg/kg |
| Zinc (Zn) | Yes | 5 mg/kg |
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Aflatoxin B1 | <0.05 µg/kg |
| Aflatoxin B2 | <0.050 µg/kg |
| Aflatoxin G1 | <0.05 µg/kg |
| Aflatoxin G2 | <0.050 µg/kg |
| Sum of aflatoxins B+G | <0.05 µg/kg |
| Ochratoxin A | <0.5 µg/kg |
| Deoxynivalenol | <60 µg/kg |
| Zearalenone | <5 µg/kg |
All eight analyses were carried out under method PB-296/LF, marked on the certificate as a subcontracted accredited method under accreditation AB 1095. Nuscana commissioned and reported the work rather than performing it. See our note on subcontracting below.
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Water content | 4.67% w/w |
Laboratory-recorded sample condition on receipt: Correct
Mongolian Altai (South)
Tested by EkotechLAB, Gdansk, Poland. Analysis Report S/963a/23 (completed 10 January 2024), Certificate S/CL/83c/2024 aR for heavy metals (PCA accredited AB 1755, ILAC-MRA) and Certificate S/CL/83c/2024 for water content, both completed 31 January 2024.
The southern Mongolian Altai shares its name with the Siberian Altai but is geologically distinct. The differences in mineral composition between the two are a clear illustration of how even origins within the same mountain system can produce meaningfully different Shilajit profiles.
Sodium is the clearest difference: 867 mg/kg here against 570 mg/kg in the Siberian Altai. The comparison runs the other way on several elements, though. Siberian Altai returns more phosphorus (1,700 against 644 mg/kg), considerably more aluminium (1,200 against 151 mg/kg) and slightly more manganese (64 against 54 mg/kg). The southern Mongolian section contains more sedimentary and volcanic rock influence than the ancient Precambrian formations of the Siberian north, and the two profiles differ accordingly rather than one simply being richer than the other.
The fulvic acid result of 54.91% sits between Hunza and the other two origins, with a humic acid content of 15.67% that indicates a reasonably full-spectrum resin. Every element on this origin was measured by PN-EN ISO 11885:2009. We haven't yet commissioned the more sensitive ICP-MS re-run we ordered for the Siberian Altai, so the trace figures here are less finely resolved.
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Fulvic acids hydrophobic fraction | 54.91% w/w |
| Humic acids | 15.67% w/w |
| Compound | Method | As reported | mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potassium (K) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 5.36% w/w | 53,600 |
| Calcium (Ca) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 1.5% w/w | 15,000 |
| Magnesium (Mg) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 1.17% w/w | 11,700 |
| Sodium (Na) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 867 mg/kg | 867 |
| Phosphorus (P) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 644 mg/kg | 644 |
| Iron (Fe) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 292 mg/kg | 292 |
| Aluminium (Al) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 151 mg/kg | 151 |
| Boron (B) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 117 mg/kg | 117 |
| Manganese (Mn) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 54 mg/kg | 54 |
| Strontium (Sr) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 53 mg/kg | 53 |
| Zinc (Zn) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 20 mg/kg | 20 |
| Barium (Ba) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 13 mg/kg | 13 |
| Copper (Cu) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 9 mg/kg | 9 |
| Nickel (Ni) | PN-EN ISO 11885:2009 (E) | 3 mg/kg | 3 |
Fourteen elements. Sodium and phosphorus lead the mg/kg figures, but potassium, calcium and magnesium are an order of magnitude larger once the percentages are converted.
| Compound | Accredited | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Silver, cadmium, chromium, nickel, lead, vanadium | Yes | Below 4 mg/kg |
| Mercury (Hg) | No | Below 4 mg/kg |
| Copper (Cu) | Yes | 6 mg/kg |
| Manganese (Mn) | Yes | 46 mg/kg |
| Zinc (Zn) | Yes | 15 mg/kg |
| Iron (Fe) | Yes | Above 200 mg/kg |
Two entries here need explaining rather than glossing. The accredited method quantifies between 4 and 200 mg/kg, so "below 4 mg/kg" is as precise as it gets at the bottom end, and iron exceeded the top of that range. Iron isn't a contaminant concern, and the elemental profile above puts it at 292 mg/kg. Mercury is the one element run on a method EkotechLAB doesn't hold accreditation for, marked NA on the certificate. The reason is explained above.
| Compound | Result |
|---|---|
| Water content | 7.42% w/w |
Laboratory-recorded sample condition on receipt: Correct
Certificate dates, batches, and what we can't claim
You'll have noticed the dates above don't match. Kashmiri was analysed in spring 2026, Siberian Altai in late 2025, Hunza and Mongolian Altai in early 2024. That's worth explaining rather than leaving you to guess.
A certificate covers the batch it was drawn from, not a period of time. It doesn't expire on an anniversary. If the batch hasn't changed, the analysis still describes what's in the jar. What differs between our origins isn't how often we test, it's how quickly each one sells. Hunza is our slowest seller, so a single batch has lasted a long time. We test each new batch before it goes on sale and replace the certificates here when we do. The certificates on this page identify the laboratory sample reference rather than the lot code printed on your jar, so if you want to confirm which certificate covers the jar you have, contact us with the lot code and we will tell you.
Storage matters over that kind of timescale, so here's what we actually do. Material arrives and stays in individually sealed one-kilogram bags. A bag is opened only when we're jarring from it, and the rest stay sealed until their turn. Shilajit is a low-moisture geological material, our Hunza measured 2.57% water content, the lowest of the four, and low water activity is the main reason materials like this resist microbial growth. Sealed storage limits moisture uptake and air exposure on top of that.
Here's the part most brands would leave out. We believe that keeps the resin stable. We haven't proved it. We haven't run formal stability testing, and we haven't re-analysed a stored batch after two years to demonstrate the composition hasn't shifted. The reasoning is sound and the storage is careful, but reasoning isn't data, and we've spent this whole page arguing that the difference matters.
Two of these batches are moving. A new Mongolian Altai batch is arriving shortly and will be analysed before it goes on sale. The Hunza batch above is near its end, and its replacement will be tested the same way. In both cases the certificates on this page get replaced with the new results, and the dates will move accordingly.
Shop the range
Ready to choose your origin?
Browse our full range of Shilajit resin, each independently tested and sourced from its declared region.
Shop Shilajit resinAbout EkotechLAB
EkotechLAB Marek Klein S.K.A. is a specialist analytical chemistry laboratory based in Gdansk, Poland. The scientists who conduct our analyses are specialists in instrumental analysis, and every certificate on this page names EkotechLAB's own R&D laboratory as the facility that carried out the work.
Their heavy metals testing carries PCA accreditation (AB 1755), the Polish Centre for Accreditation, under the ILAC-MRA international mutual recognition arrangement. ILAC-MRA membership means the laboratory's accredited results are recognised as technically equivalent to those of accredited laboratories in over 100 countries worldwide.
We don't conduct our own testing or commission testing from laboratories with a commercial interest in the outcome. EkotechLAB has no affiliation with One Life Foods beyond providing analytical services.
If you have questions about our testing programme, the methods used, or the results presented here, you're welcome to contact us directly.
Want to understand how to interpret the methods, units, accreditation details and footnotes shown on a laboratory document? Read our guide to how to read a Shilajit lab report. For a broader explanation of why each category of analysis matters, see how Shilajit testing works.
Last reviewed: July 2026















