An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Worth separating two things that post #42 runs together.
The distinction between release testing and characterisation is one industrial documents make and retail ones usually do not. It is the difference between "we tested every lot for this" and "we established this once".
The fields that make one usable: lot identifier matching the container, test date, method identification specific enough to reproduce, the result as a number, and the acceptance criterion stated separately from the result.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
Where I part company with post #89, and it is a narrow parting.
An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is.
The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.
A chromatogram supplied as a small image is legible for peak shape and not for baseline detail. That is enough to sanity-check an integration and not enough to reproduce it.
A chromatogram supplied as a small image is legible for peak shape and not for baseline detail. That is enough to sanity-check an integration and not enough to reproduce it.
Read the full topic (118 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reused chromatograms across lots: how to spot it — what changed since
Reused chromatograms across lots: how to spot it — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of Reused chromatograms across…
|
+34 | 39 | 20k | 2mo |
|
"Greater than or equal to 99%" as a specification rather than a result
"Greater than or equal to 99%" as a specification rather than a result Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Setting out an integration problem with the actual…
|
+132 | 146 | 47k | 5mo |
|
What a certificate commits its issuer to
The question in the title: What a certificate commits its issuer to I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a…
|
+101 | 116 | 26k | 19h |
|
Certificates issued by the seller versus by a laboratory
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Certificates issued by the seller versus by a laboratory Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to understand what this number means before I…
|
+58 | 65 | 1.2k | 15mo |
|
Coming back to: Which fields on a certificate actually matter, ranked
Which fields on a certificate actually matter, ranked I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a…
|
2 | 15k | 4mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Batch date after test date, and other internal inconsistencies
On the subject in the title: Batch date after test date, and other internal inconsistencies Working notes rather than a conclusion. Batch date — I have the observation and I do not trust my interpretation of…
|
+21 | 27 | 420 | 3h |
|
What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly
What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about how a record should be read rather than…
|
+27 | 31 | 27k | 7mo |
|
Reporting a good result: why nobody bothers and why they should — one year on
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reporting a good result: why nobody bothers and why they should — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that. The question about Reporting a good result…
|
+19 | 27 | 4.7k | 18mo |
|
Water content on a certificate and why it changes the arithmetic — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Water content on a certificate and why it changes the arithmetic — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Water content…
|
3 | 801 | 8mo | |
|
Water content on a certificate and why it changes the arithmetic
Water content on a certificate and why it changes the arithmetic — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Water content: setting out the arithmetic in full, because I have had to…
|
+19 | 23 | 24k | 14mo |