[Lab] split one vial across VendorInvestigate and PeptideMeter — 98.0% and 97.9%
Result first, context after: split one vial across VendorInvestigate and PeptideMeter — 98.0% and 97.9% . Everything below is how it was ordered, stored and sent. To save the first four comments: 98.0% and 97.9%. Chased a ghost peak for three weeks. It was the plumbing. It is always the plumbing. Carryover from a…
The system suitability argument, since it comes up whenever somebody posts a number without one.
Before the sample result means anything, the instrument has to be shown to be fit that day: replicate injections with an acceptable RSD on area, a tailing factor inside limits, adequate plate count, and a resolution check between the pair you care about.
None of that is exotic and all of it is routine in a laboratory that reports for a living. Its absence does not mean a number is wrong; it means the number is unanchored, and unanchored numbers should not be quoted to two decimal places on this board.
I would not blame the sample yet. Everything you have described is consistent with the column rather than the vial.
What did system suitability look like on that sequence?
Bought a second-hand instrument and learned more in six months of fixing it than in three years of reading traces.
the column has a history and it shows in the peak shape
Correcting myself upthread: I said the gradient was linear and looking again it has a hold in the middle.
Small fix — 214nm, not 210. It matters for the comparison you are making with the other run.