Qualifying a triphala supplier means asking a question you would never ask about a single-botanical extract: do you verify what is actually in the blend, or do you just tell me? Most suppliers declare 1:1:1. Considerably fewer can demonstrate it. That gap is where the whole risk on this ingredient lives, and one question exposes it.
Three Disqualifying Red Flags
- Declares 1:1:1 but cannot verify it analytically. As covered in adulteration and authenticity, ratio manipulation passes a tannin assay perfectly. A supplier without verification capability cannot detect it in their own incoming material, let alone prove composition to you.
- Cannot identify the three fruits separately before blending. A supplier who buys pre-blended material is one step removed from the only point where species verification is straightforward — and is trusting someone else's composition.
- Ambiguous about extract versus churna. These are several-fold different in concentration. A quotation that does not state which, clearly, is a quotation you cannot evaluate.
The one-question filter: "Do you verify the fruit ratio by marker HPLC, and will that verification appear on every batch CoA?" On a single-botanical extract this question makes no sense. On triphala it is the whole assessment — because it distinguishes a supplier who knows what is in the drum from one who is passing on an assurance.
The Scoring Framework
Weighted to 100 points, with composition control carrying 40 — reflecting that on a blend, composition is the product.
1. Ratio Verification and Composition Control — 40 points
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Fruit ratio verified by marker HPLC and reported on every batch CoA | 14 |
| Each fruit species identified individually before blending | 9 |
| All three species declared by binomial on the certificate | 6 |
| Chebulagic / chebulinic and ellagic acid figures reported | 6 |
| Will supply three consecutive batch marker profiles on request | 5 |
That last row deserves attention. As explained in the standardisation guide, natural marker variation scatters while systematic under-weighting produces a consistent directional bias. Three batches distinguish the two; one cannot.
2. Raw Material Control — 15 points
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Deseeded fruit pericarp only — declaration on every batch | 6 |
| Acid-insoluble ash limited at NMT 2% — catches stone and grit | 4 |
| Collection status declared (cultivated / wild-collected) per fruit | 3 |
| Fruit origin and harvest period stated | 2 |
3. Assay and Product Clarity — 15 points
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Total tannins by UV with the method named | 5 |
| Extract versus churna stated unambiguously in quotation and CoA | 5 |
| Assay on dry, carrier-free basis; carriers declared by name and percentage | 3 |
| Will measure vitamin C on request rather than implying amla-level content | 2 |
The last row is a small but genuine honesty signal. A supplier who volunteers that extract vitamin C is process-dependent, rather than trading on amla's reputation, is telling you how they handle other claims.
4. Compliance and Contaminant Testing — 15 points
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Heavy metals by ICP-MS with numeric per-element limits | 4 |
| Aflatoxin testing by HPLC-FLD | 4 |
| Full USP microbiological panel including pathogens | 3 |
| EU pesticide MRL screening with a real report | 2 |
| Non-ETO declaration with LC-MS/MS available | 2 |
Aflatoxin earns its weighting on a dried-fruit blend stored in a warm climate before processing — and note that with three fruits, you have three raw-material streams each carrying that risk.
5. Consistency and Commercial Terms — 15 points
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Three consecutive batch CoAs with consistent ratio verification | 5 |
| Can quote and verify a custom ratio if required | 3 |
| Incoterms quoted properly to your named destination | 3 |
| Written payment terms on a proforma invoice | 2 |
| Technical questions answered by someone who understands the chemistry | 2 |
Interpreting the Score
| Score | Reading |
|---|---|
| 85–100 | Qualified for bulk supply. Proceed to sample and pre-shipment verification. |
| 70–84 | Workable with conditions. Close the gaps in writing before first bulk order. |
| 55–69 | Trial quantities only, with independent ratio verification on every lot. |
| Below 55 | Not a supplier for a regulated market. |
Apply a hard floor on section 1: below 25 of 40, decline regardless of total. A supplier can score full marks on contaminants, terms and responsiveness while being unable to tell you what proportion of each fruit is in the drum. On a blend, that is not a gap in the specification — it is the absence of one.
The Manufacturer-Versus-Trader Question
More consequential on triphala than elsewhere, and worth asking directly.
A manufacturer buys three fruits, identifies each, blends to a controlled ratio and extracts. Composition is under their control and verifiable at the point it is created.
A trader buys finished triphala extract and resells it. Whatever the ratio is, they inherited it — and verifying composition on a finished blend is harder than controlling it during blending.
Ask: "Do you blend from identified fruit, or buy blended extract?" Both can be honest businesses. Only one controls the thing that defines the product.
The Sample Stage
- Ask for the marker profile with the sample, not just the tannin figure. How readily it arrives tells you whether ratio verification is routine or improvised for your enquiry.
- Confirm extract or churna explicitly in writing.
- Taste it. Triphala extract is strongly astringent and sour. Material that tastes flat for its stated tannin content merits a chromatogram.
- Check solubility. The extract should dissolve readily in water; poor solubility suggests churna or heavy carrier content.
- Check the CoA carries all three binomials. A single "triphala" line means the labelling work falls entirely on you.
- Did they ask about your market? A supplier who does not raise the three-species labelling point is not thinking about your compliance burden.
First-Order Protocol
- Nominate an independent laboratory — Eurofins, SGS or Intertek. Put ratio markers in the scope — chebulagic/chebulinic and ellagic acid — not just total tannins. An independent tannin figure reproduces exactly the blind spot you are paying to close, and this is the most common error in triphala verification.
- Compare the independent marker profile against the supplier's and against the declared ratio.
- Retain a sealed, dated sample, stored dry and sealed given the material's hygroscopicity.
- Re-verify at batch three, then annually — and always when one of the three fruits has a poor season. Rising cost on any single fruit raises the incentive to re-weight the blend.
SV Botanica identifies each fruit before blending, verifies the ratio by marker HPLC on every batch, reports the chebulagic/chebulinic, ellagic and gallic acid figures, and supplies a deseeded declaration with all three binomials on every certificate. Buyer-nominated third-party pre-shipment testing is welcome. See the product page, the buyer's guide, or adulteration and authenticity.
Source Ratio-Verified Triphala Extract from India
Classical 1:1:1 amla, bibhitaki & haritaki · ratio verified by marker HPLC, not just declared · tannins NLT 40% · CoA-backed · samples for qualified buyers