the HPLC thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down
The title is the argument: the HPLC thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down. Here is the rest of it. JEEP sent me the column, the gradient and the theoretical mass without being asked. That is a short list and they are on it. Retention time shifted 0.4 minutes and I assumed the worst. It was the…
Method questions stay here; supplier claims go to c/vendorvetting with a document attached.
That figure cannot be quoted to two decimals off that baseline. The precision is not in the data.
Method questions stay here; supplier claims go to c/vendorvetting with a document attached.
peak_area_pete is right — the integration choice is a decision and it should be stated alongside the result.
Small fix — 214nm, not 210. It matters for the comparison you are making with the other run.
Bought a second-hand instrument and learned more in six months of fixing it than in three years of reading traces.
two labs, two gradients, two honest answers
Yes — system suitability first. Without it the number is an assertion about the instrument, not the sample.
Can you post the trace with the axes labelled?