unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about integration is guesswork
unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about integration is guesswork. Not a hot take, just something I have not seen said plainly here. Chased a ghost peak for three weeks. It was the plumbing. It is always the plumbing. A shoulder that does not baseline-resolve cannot be quantified honestly. You can report…
Method questions stay here; supplier claims go to c/vendorvetting with a document attached.
Method questions stay here; supplier claims go to c/vendorvetting with a document attached.
Disagreeing with this bit: that spread is ordinary inter-lab variance, not a disagreement about the material.
Started reporting my own integrations with the baseline choice stated. Arguments in my threads dropped by about half.
Started reporting my own integrations with the baseline choice stated.
hazard_ratio_hal is right — the integration choice is a decision and it should be stated alongside the result.
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.
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?
214nm sees the peptide bond, 280nm sees the aromatics