How We Test Our Shilajit

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.

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.

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. Our Hindu Kush shows a milder version of the same pattern, 59.53% fulvic against 10.40% humic with a notably lean mineral profile. Compare both to the Mongolian Altai at 10.19% humic and 51.93% fulvic, or the Siberian Altai at 5.8% humic and 41.19% fulvic, which retain richer 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.

Iron in our Siberian Altai, at 923 mg/kg, is the highest across our range and reflects the ancient iron-rich Precambrian rock formations of the region. Boron works the other way: 142 mg/kg in the Kashmiri against 69 in the Mongolian Altai and 13 in the Hindu Kush, consistent with the evaporite and sedimentary character of the Kashmir basin.

Potassium and calcium separate the origins just as clearly. The Kashmiri returns 5.69% potassium and 2.81% calcium, and the Mongolian 3.59% and 2.96%. The Hindu Kush returns 0.62% and 685 mg/kg, roughly a fortieth of the calcium, which tells you as much about how the resin was purified as about where it came from.

Our earlier certificates for some origins included strontium, which is a useful marker for limestone-dominant geology. The September 2026 reports cover a different element panel and don't include it, so we've stopped citing a figure we can no longer evidence from a current report.

Siberian and Mongolian Altai share a mountain range, yet their profiles diverge. On the September 2026 analysis the Mongolian runs to 1,008 mg/kg phosphorus and 282 mg/kg aluminium, both the highest in our range, while its sodium comes in at 142 mg/kg. The southern Mongolian section carries more sedimentary and volcanic influence than the Precambrian formations further north, and the mineral profiles reflect that. Note that the two were analysed on different element panels and in different years, so read them as profiles rather than as a like-for-like comparison.

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.

How the origins compare on mineral content

People ask which of our origins carries the most minerals, so here are all five together, with the columns you need in order to read them fairly.

Totals add up every element the laboratory was able to quantify on that certificate. Elements reported as below a detection limit are left out, because below a limit isn't a number you can add up.

Four of the five were analysed on the same eighteen elements, so their totals can be read against each other directly. Hunza is the exception: its fourteen-element panel includes strontium and barium, which the others don't cover, and leaves out six trace elements that they do. Its total is a slightly different measurement rather than simply a smaller one.

The quantified column is worth a second look, because it moves for a reason that has nothing to do with the resin. The 2026 reports use a flat reporting limit of 10 mg/kg across seven trace elements, where the 2025 Siberian Altai analysis measured several of them individually: copper at 9 mg/kg, lithium at 6, nickel at 5, chromium at 4. Those six elements come to roughly 27 mg/kg between them. They change the count a great deal and the total almost not at all.

Dates differ too, and a certificate describes the batch it was drawn from rather than a period of time. Siberian Altai is from late 2025 and Hunza from early 2024, which we cover further down this page.

What this table isn't is a quality ranking. A higher mineral total isn't better the way a higher exam mark is better. It shows where a resin sits on the trade-off this page keeps coming back to: purification concentrates fulvic acids, and it strips mineral content and humic acids on the way. Our Hindu Kush returns the highest fulvic figure in the range at 59.53% and the lowest mineral total. Our Siberian Altai and Kashmiri sit at the other end, carrying ten times the mineral content at lower fulvic figures. Hunza sits lower again on minerals at 64.13% fulvic, the highest we stock. None of those is the right answer. They're different resins, and which one suits you depends on what you're after.

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. Where it has been measured our results range from 2.57% in Hunza to 4.67% in Kashmiri. Water content wasn't included in the Siberian Altai analysis, and it's still outstanding for the Hindu Kush and the current Mongolian Altai batch; both are marked as pending in their sections below. 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.

Certificate dates, batches, and what we can't claim

You'll have noticed the dates above don't match. Kashmiri, Mongolian Altai and Hindu Kush were analysed in September 2026, Siberian Altai in late 2025, and Hunza in early 2024. The Kashmiri water content and mycotoxin results are older still, from the batch analysed in May 2026, and are labelled as such in that section. 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'll 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.

Several things on this page are still moving, and we'd rather list them than let you find the gaps yourself. Water content and microbiology are outstanding for the Hindu Kush and for the current Mongolian Altai batch. The Kashmiri water content and mycotoxin figures shown above are from its May 2026 batch, and both are being re-run on the current one, with microbiology added for that origin for the first time. The Hunza batch is near its end and its replacement will be tested the same way. In each case the results here get replaced when the new ones arrive, and the dates move with them.

About 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.