Lab-Made vs Natural Shilajit: What Our Eurofins DBP Study Found

Chapter 01Why did we fund our own lab research to answer one question about shilajit?

Because the usual proof does not prove much. Almost every shilajit jar says the same three things: mountain origin, a high fulvic acid percentage, and lab tested. None of those lines tells you whether the resin inside formed slowly in rock or was assembled in a factory. We wanted a test that sees that difference at the level of molecules.

So in November 2025 we asked Eurofins, one of the largest food and supplement testing networks in the world, to measure the signature molecules of shilajit in our resin. The first answer was short: the lab could not test for these molecules. So Natural Shilajit™ funded one. Over eleven months, as part of more than $20,000 of research we have funded at Eurofins, the Eurofins food chemistry laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin developed and validated a new LC-MS/MS method for two dibenzo-alpha-pyrones (DBPs) in shilajit resin. The final Method Validation Report was signed on October 15, 2026. Eurofins keeps the method as its intellectual property and, by its written assurance to us, does not offer it to other clients without our permission.

What follows is the full story, and it is long on purpose. The article explains what separates shilajit that formed in a mountain from shilajit that was built or rebuilt in a lab, why a very high fulvic acid number does and does not tell you, what DBPs are, why the molecules in real resin were so hard to get out, and every number the validated method produced, including the ones that do not flatter us. Most sections are told twice: once in plain words, once in the language of the lab.

You do not have to take our word for any of this. Below is the complete signed method validation report, every page as Eurofins issued it. Scroll through it and zoom in on any table.

Eurofins also issued a certificate of analysis for each resin it worked with in the feasibility and validation phases: lot A is our resin, lot B is the comparison sample. They confirm that both phases were ordered and completed. The measured results are in the report above.

Chapter 02What is the difference between lab-made and mountain-made shilajit?

In plain words: real shilajit comes out of mountain rock as a dark resin of humic matter, minerals and small molecules; purified with water, it is still whole resin. Lab-made covers two different things: a lab-processed extract, made from real shilajit taken apart and recombined to a target, and a lab-built look-alike made from ingredients that never saw a mountain.

In the language of the lab: published reviews describe shilajit as a complex mixture of organic humic substances and plant and microbial metabolites that occurs in the rock rhizospheres of its habitat read the 2007 review². A 2025 review of its chemistry found that more than 80% of its weight is humic substances and almost 20% is calcium, potassium and magnesium, with amino acids, fatty acids and phenolic compounds in smaller amounts read the composition review¹². Those parts are not simply lying side by side: the 2025 analysis describes shilajit as a heterogeneous organic and inorganic matrix see the 2025 analysis¹⁴.

Three kinds of product that are all sold as shilajit

How a lab turns shilajit into a high-fulvic extract

The process is public. A published United States patent on purifying shilajit describes how to prepare a purified shilajit composition from native shilajit. The raw exudate is dissolved in water and filtered. The residue is extracted with a hot organic solvent such as methanol, which pulls out the small phenolic molecules, including the DBPs. The remaining humic fraction is mixed with dilute sodium hydroxide, then acidified below about pH 3 so that humic acids drop out. What stays dissolved, the fulvic fraction, is passed over activated carbon and an ion-exchange resin, evaporated, and finally recombined with the phenolic fraction in a fixed ratio, together with a set minimum of DBPs. The patent's target is at least 60% fulvic acids, preferably 65 to 70%. A label that calls itself raw resin and makes a fulvic claim that high deserves two questions: how was it processed, and by which method was it measured? Standardized research extracts carry high fulvic fractions too: a processed shilajit used in a 2012 animal study was standardized to a fulvic fraction above half its weight see the 2012 study⁴.

Purified shilajit extracts are legitimate products made from real shilajit, and purified shilajit has been studied in people see the testosterone trial⁷. We call such extracts processed, never fake. In the patented process described above, the fulvic number is high because the humic acids, the humins and much of the mineral matter were removed, and the DBP fraction was extracted and mixed back in. That is a different product from resin as it came out of the rock, not a lesser one by definition.

And how a product can be built without shilajit at all

Fulvic acid is also sold as an ingredient in its own right, and the reference materials it is studied against are isolated from sources such as leonardite and peat. A 2024 study in the Journal of AOAC International, by researchers from the humic products industry and the University of Colorado, notes that some humic and fulvic products may be mislabeled or contain adulterants, and that this is found primarily in fulvic acid products; the same study found that its UV test could not yet reliably tell real from fake fulvic products read the AOAC study¹³. In principle, a dark base, a fulvic powder and a printed percentage could make a jar that looks like shilajit on a shelf, and a label number alone would not reveal it.

Chapter 03What does a very high fulvic acid percentage really tell you?

In plain words: fulvic acid matters, but it is the easiest number in this category to push up. Whole resin is several kinds of humic material plus minerals, so only part of it can be fulvic acid ¹². A label claim of 80% or 90% is hard to square with whole resin, so ask what was done to it.

In the language of the lab: if more than 80% of whole shilajit is humic substances of all kinds and close to 20% is calcium, potassium and magnesium see the composition review¹², then fulvic acid has to share the humic share with humic acids and humins. Fulvic acid is also an operational fraction: it is defined by how a laboratory separates it, so two methods can report different numbers for the same jar, and composition varies between regions, so these shares are a guide rather than a fixed limit. A percentage with no lot number, no laboratory and no method is a marketing figure, not a measurement.

For reference, our resin measured 34.52 g of fulvic acid per 100 g, about 35%, on the Eurofins certificate of analysis for lot 2232-132^lab, a third-party lab result you can open on our certificates of analysis page. We publish that number because it is measured, not because it is high. A natural resin should not be expected to beat a fractionated extract on this one figure, and it does not need to.

Chapter 04What are DBPs, and why are they called the signature molecules of shilajit?

In plain words: DBPs are small, flat, ring-shaped molecules that researchers found in shilajit decades ago. If fulvic acid is the bulk of the building, DBPs are small marks on the walls: present in small amounts and measurable. How they sit in a material is a clue to how it was made, though not proof on its own.

In the language of the lab: dibenzo-alpha-pyrones are aromatic lactones built on a 6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-6-one core: two benzene rings joined through a six-membered lactone ring. Ghosal and colleagues reported the chemical constituents of shilajit in 1976 read the original analysis¹, and a later safety and efficacy review names dibenzo-alpha-pyrones, together with fulvic acid, as the key constituents behind shilajit's studied effects see the review⁵. A 2025 multi-technique analysis of a native Himalayan shilajit again identified dibenzo-alpha-pyrones alongside fulvic acid see the 2025 analysis¹⁴.

Why Eurofins measured urolithin A and urolithin B

Eurofins quantified two DBPs for which certified reference standards are available. Those standards exist because the same molecules are well known under another name: 3-hydroxy-DBP is urolithin B, and 3,8-dihydroxy-DBP is urolithin A. In nutrition science, urolithins are best known as compounds the gut microbiome makes from ellagitannins in pomegranates, berries and nuts read the urolithin review⁹. In December 2025 Eurofins confirmed the match by registry number, and the project narrowed to these two markers.

Chapter 05How did a lab that could not test DBPs end up building a method for us?

In plain words: we asked for a test Eurofins did not offer, then paid for it to be built, step by step, with real scientists who were free to tell us when an idea did not work. The scientists did exactly that, several times, and the method is stronger for it.

In the language of the lab: the request went in on November 12, 2025. After technical calls, Eurofins replaced our early compound list with the two DBPs that have certified standards, priced a feasibility phase and a validation phase, which we funded in January 2026. The work followed the laboratory's validation procedure (SOP3309), with a signed validation plan that defined the acceptance criteria before any validation result was known. Two analysts ran the validation between August 13 and October 1, 2026^lab.

The budget tells its own story. Eurofins quoted a feasibility phase and a validation phase. When the resin refused to cooperate, the extra experiments used up the validation budget, the lab moved to hourly method development, and we funded a second validation round to finish the job. We never asked the lab to stop at a convenient answer, and the final numbers below show that we did not get one.

Chapter 06Why could the lab not get the DBPs out of real resin?

In plain words: imagine trying to count the raisins in a cake by shaking the cake. Almost nothing falls out, not because there are no raisins, but because they are baked in. Our resin did the same thing to the lab's first tests. The molecules were there, but they would not come out into the liquid the instrument reads.

In the language of the lab: the first extractions gave a very weak urolithin response from our resin and a much stronger one from a market sample. Hydrochloric acid at 5% and 15% (0.6 and 1.8 molar in the final solution) did not raise the result. A first saponification, 2 grams of resin in water, potassium hydroxide and ethanol for two hours at 50 degrees Celsius, did not break the matrix down, and a hexane partition of the result showed no urolithin at all.

The second obstacle: a matrix that blinds the instrument

Even when molecules reach the instrument, a humic-rich sample can hide them. In electrospray ionization, everything that comes off the column at the same moment competes for charge. Dissolved matrix material can win that competition and the target signal shrinks. The lab saw exactly this: the isotope-labelled internal standard, added in a known amount, came back strongly suppressed, which meant a large part of the shilajit matrix was still in the vial at the last step. Analytical chemists regard this as a central validation problem, not a footnote read the matrix effects overview³.

If ion suppression is not assessed and corrected in an analytical method, the sensitivity of the LC-MS method can be seriously undermined, and it is possible that the target analyte may be undetected even when using very sensitive instrumentation.Furey and colleagues, Talanta, 2013

The quoted sentence is the whole first half of our project. A cheap test would have reported that our resin has almost no DBPs and stopped there see the ion suppression review⁶.

Chapter 07How did Eurofins finally release the molecules hidden in the resin?

In plain words: the lab had to find a recipe strong enough to unlock the resin but gentle enough not to break the very molecules it was looking for. Too weak, and nothing comes out. Too strong, and you destroy the evidence. The analysts found that window by testing it in small steps.

In the language of the lab: DBPs are lactones, and a lactone ring can open under strong base. So the lab ran two workflows side by side. Procedure A measured the free fraction with a direct extraction and no hydrolysis. Procedure B added a controlled alkaline hydrolysis to release bound forms. For Procedure B, the lab stepped potassium hydroxide through 10%, 30% and 50%, time through half an hour, one hour and three and a half hours, and temperature through 40, 55 and 65 degrees Celsius, each time checking a fortified blank to catch any destruction of urolithin A.

The finding that changed the method

To prove a method works, a lab adds a known amount of the target molecule to the sample and checks how much it finds again. Our resin is a natural material and is not uniform: early on, the lab saw different urolithin A levels in two containers of the same lot. So it thoroughly homogenized the resin using liquid nitrogen and weighed every portion from one container. In that material, Procedure A recovered only about 50% of the urolithin A that had just been added, while Procedure B recovered it within the 70 to 120% range the validation plan required. The lab wrote to us that this pointed to robustness limits of Procedure A, possibly related to binding or association of the analyte with the sample matrix, and recommended Procedure B as the only routine preparation.

The signed report records the same decision: because the initial work showed poor robustness and reproducibility of the procedure for free urolithins after methanol extraction, the validated method was restricted to urolithin A and B after alkaline hydrolysis^lab. Procedure B measures total urolithin: the free part plus the part the hydrolysis releases.

Read that again, because it is the heart of the study. The urolithin A in that experiment was added by the analysts as a clean, free molecule. Within one preparation, plain solvent got back only about half of it; the lab's explanation is possible binding or association with the resin matrix. The same behavior made the first, simple tests underestimate our resin. It also means extraction behavior alone cannot show how a molecule got into a product, because a dense matrix can take up even a molecule that was just added.

Chapter 08Why might resin that formed slowly in rock hold its molecules so tightly?

In plain words: real shilajit forms rather than being mixed, though exactly how is debated. The usual account: plant and microbial matter in mountain rock breaks down over a very long time and small molecules end up inside bigger ones. That is our best explanation, not a proven one, for the lab's months of chemistry.

In the language of the lab: people have used shilajit for thousands of years see the 2007 review², yet how it forms is still debated; some researchers describe it as transformed plant residues, others as material secreted gradually from rock see the composition review¹². What the literature agrees on is the result: a heterogeneous organic and mineral matrix see the 2025 analysis¹⁴. Shilajit research also describes DBPs inside larger fractions called dibenzo-alpha-pyrone chromoproteins: a processed shilajit used in a 2012 animal study was standardized not only to free DBPs but to a separate DBP-chromoprotein fraction many times larger see the 2012 study⁴. Slow humification is a plausible way such larger assemblies form, and a larger assembly is the kind of thing a direct solvent extraction struggles to open.

A factory can concentrate, separate and mix in an afternoon. Whether a factory mixture could reproduce the matrix of resin that formed in rock has not been tested, by us or by anyone we know of. A fulvic acid percentage cannot show that difference either. What our resin showed in the lab is a matrix that holds urolithin tightly. We read that as the signature of a dense natural humic matrix; the lab describes it only as a robustness limit, possibly related to binding or association with the matrix.

Chapter 09What did the validated method measure in five shilajit samples?

In plain words: we did not only test ourselves. The validation ran five resins: two lots of ours, one market product we bought, and two retail products. Our two lots came out almost identical. One retail product stayed below the reporting limit for both markers. Two had more urolithin than ours, which is not the same as being more natural.

In the language of the lab: all results are total urolithin after alkaline hydrolysis (Procedure B), in mg per kg of resin, from Table 1 of the signed report. Our lot 2232-132 was measured 11 times by two analysts, the other samples three times each^lab. The reporting limit is 2.5 mg per kg for each marker^lab. We do not name the brands of the comparison products.

What our own numbers say

Two different lots of our resin gave 20.67 and 20.54 mg of urolithin A per kg^lab. For a natural material that the lab itself found uneven from container to container, that is a close match, and it is the kind of agreement between lots we hoped to see. Urolithin B stayed below the 2.5 mg per kg reporting limit in both lots^lab. The report states a measurement uncertainty of 37.4% at 95% confidence for urolithin A in lot 2232-132, so the honest way to read our result is roughly 13 to 28 mg per kg, centred on 21^lab.

What the other numbers say

Retail product C showed neither marker above the reporting limit, so the method could not quantify either of the two markers in it; other DBPs were not measured. Products B and D carried several times more urolithin than our resin, with more urolithin B than urolithin A in both. A total number cannot tell where those molecules came from: urolithin A and urolithin B are sold as pure ingredients, and the method counts a purchased molecule exactly like a native one. During development, before the final method was fixed, the lab compared free and total urolithin in our resin and in product B. In ours, urolithin levels rose clearly after hydrolysis; in product B they stayed comparable with and without it. We present this as what it was: a single development comparison, not part of the validated method, and our own recovery test shows that behavior alone cannot prove how molecules entered a product.

Chapter 10Is more DBP better?

In plain words: this study cannot rank products by effect. In shilajit, DBPs work as a marker, not a dose. The amounts in any of these resins are tiny next to the amounts of urolithin A tested in people see a urolithin A trial¹⁰, so more urolithin is not evidence of a stronger product, only of a different marker profile.

In the language of the lab: 20.6 mg per kg means about 20 micrograms of urolithin A in a gram of our resin. Human trials of urolithin A have used it as a purified ingredient at 500 mg to 1,000 mg a day: the first human trial gave 500 and 1,000 mg for four weeks see the first human trial⁸, a four-month trial in adults aged 65 to 90 used 1,000 mg daily see the older adults trial¹⁰, and a trial in middle-aged adults used two doses over four months see the middle-aged adults trial¹¹. Even product B, with the highest total in our study, carries about a quarter of a milligram of urolithins per gram, far below those doses.

For the same reason we never print a DBP percentage on a label, and we do not claim that the DBPs in our resin act like a urolithin A supplement. Their value here is as a measurable marker. A molecule present in a steady amount from lot to lot, in a matrix that defeats a simple extraction, says something about how the material was made.

Chapter 11How do we know the method itself can be trusted?

In plain words: a validated method has been tested against rules written before the test. The lab checked that the method sees the right molecules, gets back what is added, gives the same answer on different days and in different hands, and that samples do not change while waiting. The method passed.

In the language of the lab: these are the validation parameters from the signed report.

One detail deserves a sentence of its own. On the first validation day, one replicate of our resin came back at 42.42 mg per kg, about twice the others^lab. The lab excluded it as an outlier due to material inhomogeneity, and for the later runs it homogenized the resin with liquid nitrogen and weighed smaller portions from a single container. The outlier is a reminder that a natural resin is not perfectly uniform.

The results obtained in this validation study demonstrate that the method meets the performance acceptance criteria established in the validation plan and is considered fit for its intended purpose. Accordingly, the method is approved for routine use within the validated scope.Eurofins Method Validation Report, section 5, October 15, 2026

Chapter 12What does this study not prove, and how should you use it?

In plain words: this is a measurement study, not a health study. The study tells you what is in the resin and how it behaved in extraction. The study does not tell you what the resin will do in your body, and the limits below matter as much as the results above.

• Not a stand-alone fake detector. The validated routine method measures total urolithin A and B. The free versus bound comparison came from the development experiments, and it has not been validated as an authenticity test.
• Not a brand ranking. A urolithin number does not rank products, and the market sample set is small: three products cannot describe every brand on the shelf.
• Resin only. Our capsules, tablets, gummies and NutriHoney are different matrices. The method was validated on resin, so we make no DBP statement about the other forms until they are tested with it.
• Not a health claim. The DBP levels in shilajit are far below the doses used in urolithin A trials, and human studies of shilajit used specific extracts whose results do not transfer automatically to any other product, including ours.
• Funding. Natural Shilajit paid for the research. Eurofins designed and ran the experiments and owns the method, which it offers only to us unless we give permission.

Trade-offs and limitations

Natural resin is the format this study measured, and it is also the least convenient one: it is sticky, bitter and needs a moment of preparation. Natural resin also cannot promise a round, high number on any single marker, because nature does not standardize. If a daily routine matters more to you than the ritual, a pre-measured format is a reasonable choice. Lab work of this depth is long and costly, which is why it is rare in this category.

Safety, Side Effects, and Who Should Avoid It

Pregnant or breastfeeding people, children, and people with hemochromatosis or gout should speak with a healthcare provider before using shilajit. People taking blood thinners, diabetes medication, blood pressure drugs or immunosuppressants should also check first. Start with the labeled serving and stop if you notice digestive upset or other side effects.

We started this project to answer a question for ourselves, and we are publishing it so you can ask the same question of anyone. If you want the resin that went through this study, it is our Natural Shilajit Resin; see the lab testing and safety report for its certificates. If a jar is not your routine, our Natural Shilajit capsules offer a pre-measured form. For a broader buyer's checklist, read our guide on how to verify real shilajit.

FAQQuestions Readers Ask Most