[Lab] 14th independent test on WWB — 99.6% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
Posting this because the title is the whole finding — 14th independent test on WWB — 99.6% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part — and a number without its method is a rumour.
The relevant figures are 99.6% and 99.0%, and they come from the same log I have kept the whole time.
Area percent is the integrated area of your peak over the total integrated area at one wavelength on one gradient. Change any of those and the number changes without the sample changing.
Resolution between two peaks depends on retention, selectivity and efficiency. A shallower gradient buys retention and usually resolution, at the cost of peak width and run time.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
- WWWWB source pageWuhan Wansheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd. · Wuhan · 97% here, rank 2 · shop at wuhanwanshengbio.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Carryover from a previous high-concentration injection looks exactly like a small impurity. The blank injection is four minutes and it removes the ambiguity entirely.
Started reporting my own integrations with the baseline choice stated. Arguments in my threads dropped by about half.
ghost peak, check the plumbing first, it is always the plumbing
Yes — system suitability first. Without it the number is an assertion about the instrument, not the sample.
Left up. The integration disagreement in this thread is the most useful thing on the board this week.
Agreed. Two analysts, one trace, two integration choices, and a spread that has nothing to do with the vial.
Left up.
Disagreeing with this bit: that spread is ordinary inter-lab variance, not a disagreement about the material.
Do you have the mass, or only the UV trace?