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?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
11k
c/hplc·posted 1 year ago by u/marit_mensa

[Lab] MKM cagri — Medutest came back 97.2% against a claimed 97.0%

Lab Receipts ×8 Well Actually ×3 Clean Column ×3

The claim in the title is exactly the claim I am making: MKM cagri — Medutest came back 97.2% against a claimed 97.0%. Nothing implied beyond it.

Since the title puts numbers in the shop window: 97.2% and 97.0%.

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 unanchored.

UV response is not uniform across species. At 214nm you are looking at the peptide bond, which is why it is the working wavelength for this class; at 280nm you only see tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine.

Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.

12,346 up / 1,247 down91% upvoted64 commentsid 1x42bd13 Nov 2024
Supplier named in this thread
The source page carries the verification log and every independent test a member has paid for. The storefront link is marked nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.

64 comments

30 in this archive, depth 5

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/matias_salgado586 points·1 year ago

Resolution between two peaks depends on retention, selectivity and efficiency. A shallower gradient buys retention and usually resolution, at the cost of peak width and run time.

replysharereportpermalink
u/mass_spec_maggieMOD359 points·1 year ago

Method questions stay here; supplier claims go to c/vendorvetting with a document attached.

replysharereportpermalink
u/adaeze_batista167 points·1 year ago

Method questions stay here; supplier claims go to c/vendorvetting with a document attached.

mass_spec_maggie is right — the integration choice is a decision and it should be stated alongside the result.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nora_lundgren63 points·1 year ago

That is area percent, not mass percent. The trace cannot give you the second one.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ravi_bergstrom465 points·1 year ago

A shoulder that does not baseline-resolve cannot be quantified honestly. You can report it as an unresolved shoulder, which is useful information, or you can develop the method until it resolves.

replysharereportpermalink
u/marit_mensaOP-6 points·1 year ago

Can you post the trace with the axes labelled?

replysharereportpermalink
u/first_hundred324 points·1 year ago·edited

Ran a blank after a high-concentration injection and found the carryover I had been calling an impurity.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hplc_hobbyistruns their own column208 points·1 year ago

Disagree. Inter-lab spread of a point or two on this assay is ordinary and calling it a discrepancy misleads people.

replysharereportpermalink
u/elodie_grimaldi376 points·1 year ago·edited

Mass spectrometry answers identity. UV purity answers relative quantity under the run conditions. A document with one and not the other is answering half the question, and the half it answers should be stated.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rania_okonkwo291 points·1 year ago

Correction: that is a tailing factor, not a plate count. Different diagnostics for different problems.

replysharereportpermalink
u/peak_area_peteanalytical249 points·1 year ago

LC-MS for identity, UV for relative quantity

replysharereportpermalink
u/andres_restrepo79 points·1 year ago

Yes. Retention time is a hypothesis about identity. Mass is the answer.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rania_okonkwo104 points·1 year ago·edited

Careful — you are treating retention time as identity. Two things can co-elute and the trace will not tell you.

replysharereportpermalink
u/marit_mensaOP60 points·1 year ago

Same method at both labs, or two different gradients?

replysharereportpermalink
u/dilara_nyberg46 points·1 year ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/bilal_adebayo141 points·1 year ago

area percent is relative to what the detector saw and nothing else

replysharereportpermalink
u/rina_nascimento110 points·1 year ago

Sent the same vial to Medutest and Janoshik. 99.3% against a claimed 99.0%. The difference was the gradient, not the material.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ewan_marchand52 points·1 year ago·edited

Sent the same vial to Medutest and Janoshik.

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/ferran_krastev77 points·1 year ago

Carryover from a previous high-concentration injection looks exactly like a small impurity. The blank injection is four minutes and it removes the ambiguity entirely.

replysharereportpermalink
u/marisol_frisk35 points·1 year ago

Carryover from a previous high-concentration injection looks exactly like a small impurity.

Adding one practical thing — run the blank. It answers this before anyone has to argue about it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/isabela_nilsen40 points·1 year ago

retention time alone is not identity

replysharereportpermalink
u/rina_nascimento115 points·1 year ago

a blank injection between samples costs four minutes and settles most arguments

replysharereportpermalink
u/dead_space_doug88 points·1 year ago

the column has a history and it shows in the peak shape

replysharereportpermalink
u/amara_haddad69 points·1 year ago

a shoulder is not an impurity until you can resolve it

replysharereportpermalink
u/hugo_bergstrom51 points·1 year ago

How old is the column and roughly how many injections has it seen?

replysharereportpermalink
u/hana_lehtinen23 points·1 year ago

Cosigning the wavelength point. Half the disagreements in this board are two people looking at different detectors.

replysharereportpermalink
u/marit_mensaOP13 points·1 year ago

What wavelength, and what was the gradient?

replysharereportpermalink
u/arne_nyberg19 points·1 year ago

baseline choice is a decision, not a measurement

replysharereportpermalink
u/santiago_villalobos5 points·1 year ago

report the method or do not report the number

replysharereportpermalink
u/adaeze_batista11 points·1 year ago

Gave the same trace to two people I trust and got two integrations about a point apart. That was the most educational afternoon I have had here.

replysharereportpermalink
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
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

Janoshik Analytical

Independent HPLC and mass spec. The number you get is the number they found.

janoshik.com
Sponsored

GL Biochem (Shanghai)

Custom peptides and amino acids direct from the manufacturer since 1998. ISO 9001 / cGMP. Batch COA every order.

glbiochem.net
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.
Moderators
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.