[Discussion] purity is doing more work than we give it credit for
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking related substances against triglycerides for 11 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
axis labels included, always
The chromatogram trace is where the real information lives. The summary number is just a headline.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after the analysis date. Not evidence of fraud, but worth flagging to QSC.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
Did they give you the chromatogram or just the summary line?
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
- 1Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do…7 comments in this branch · started by u/dario_boateng