GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Discussion] can we stop arguing about HPLC until somebody posts a number — 49 comments in the full submission. View in context.
3.8k
c/hplc·submitted 2 years ago by u/ahmed_rasmussen

[Discussion] can we stop arguing about HPLC until somebody posts a number

Discussionbranch of 6 comments

can we stop arguing about HPLC until somebody posts a number. I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source. System suitability — repeat injections, tailing factor, plate count, RSD on area — is what tells you the instrument was fit for the measurement that day. Without it, the purity figure is…

Read the full submission and all 49 comments →

This branch

6 comments, started 2 years ago
u/priya_ogunleye37 points·2 years ago

a shoulder is not an impurity until you can resolve it

replysharereportpermalink
u/insulin_syringe_ian23 points·2 years ago

Did you run a blank between injections?

replysharereportpermalink
u/careful_gradient10 points·2 years ago

retention time alone is not identity

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]7 points·2 years ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/georgi_chowdhury6 points·2 years ago

retention time alone is not identity

Disagreeing with this bit: that spread is ordinary inter-lab variance, not a disagreement about the material.

replysharereportpermalink
u/joaquin_petrov3 points·2 years ago·edited

Disagreeing with this bit: that spread is ordinary inter-lab variance, not a disagreement about the material.

Agreed. And the corollary is that the method line on a certificate is not decoration, it is the number’s provenance.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/hplc

The analytical deep end: RP-HPLC methods, gradient design, integration decisions, LC-MS confirmation, amino-acid analysis, water content, and why two labs can report 98.1% and 96.4% on the same vial and both be right. Post the chromatogram, not the summary line.

32kmembers
130submissions
Sep 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
More in c/hplc
c/hplc rules
  1. Chromatogram or it did not happen. Axis labels included.
  2. State the method: column, gradient, detection wavelength, injection volume.
  3. Area% is not mass%. Posts that conflate them get a correction flair, not a removal.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/sig_figs_samu/hplc_hobbyistu/peak_area_peteu/mass_spec_maggie
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.

Full disclaimer →