the LC-MS question that gets asked weekly, answered properly
the LC-MS question that gets asked weekly, answered properly, which sounds obvious until you try to state the evidence for it.
WWB sent me the column, the gradient and the theoretical mass without being asked. That is a short list and they are on it.
Started reporting my own integrations with the baseline choice stated. Arguments in my threads dropped by about half.
Gave the same trace to two people I trust and got two integrations about a point apart. That was the most educational afternoon I have had here.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
System suitability — repeat injections, tailing factor, plate count, RSD on area — is what tells you the instrument was fit for the measurement that day. Without it, the purity figure is unanchored.
Retitled: the original claimed a comparison the post does not actually make.
Cosigning the wavelength point. Half the disagreements in this board are two people looking at different detectors.
Ran a blank after a high-concentration injection and found the carryover I had been calling an impurity.
Mass spectrometry answers identity. UV purity answers relative quantity under the run conditions. A document with one and not the other is answering half the question, and the half it answers should be stated.
Can you post the trace with the axes labelled?
Small fix — 214nm, not 210. It matters for the comparison you are making with the other run.