the gradient question that gets asked weekly, answered properly
the gradient question that gets asked weekly, answered properly. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments. Sent the same vial to PeptideMeter and Medutest. 98.2% against a claimed 97.5%. The difference was the gradient, not the material. Bought a second-hand instrument and learned more…
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.
Method questions stay here; supplier claims go to c/vendorvetting with a document attached.
Ran a blank after a high-concentration injection and found the carryover I had been calling an impurity.
system suitability before you believe any number on the run
integration decisions move the number more than the sample does
integration decisions move the number more than the sample does
This is the whole methodological point of the board in one line.
LC-MS for identity, UV for relative quantity
Started reporting my own integrations with the baseline choice stated. Arguments in my threads dropped by about half.
the column has a history and it shows in the peak shape
Small fix — 214nm, not 210. It matters for the comparison you are making with the other run.
214nm sees the peptide bond, 280nm sees the aromatics