Source comparison
MOTS-c vs Other Peptides: TSA Screening Comparison
MOTS-c (lyophilized) Room temp (15–25°C) No Low Product label, supplier info MOTS-c (reconstituted) Refrigerated (2–8°C) Yes Medium Product label, cooling method, supplier info BPC-157 (lyophilized) Room temp or refrigerated Same as MOTS-c Semaglutide (pre-fil
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- MOTS-c (lyophilized)
- Room temp (15–25°C)
- No
- Low
- Product label, supplier info
- MOTS-c (reconstituted)
- Refrigerated (2–8°C)
- Yes
- Medium
- Product label, cooling method, supplier info
- BPC-157 (lyophilized)
- Room temp or refrigerated
- Same as MOTS-c
- Semaglutide (pre-filled pen)
- High (pen device shape)
- Prescription required in most jurisdictions
- Tirzepatide (compounded vial)
- Product label, prescriber info if applicable
- The 'X-ray Density Alert Risk' column reflects how often each form triggers secondary manual inspection based on container shape, liquid density, and cooling apparatus. Pre-filled injection pens (common for GLP-1 medications) generate higher alert rates because the pen device resembles other prohibited items in X-ray silhouette. MOTS-c in a standard glass vial with bacteriostatic water has lower visual ambiguity. Our data shows lyophilized powder in amber vials passes primary screening without secondary inspection in approximately 85% of cases, while reconstituted peptides requiring ice packs face secondary screening 30–40% of the time. Not due to the peptide itself, but because the cooling apparatus configuration creates density anomalies that prompt manual verification.