why does nobody talk about water content
why does nobody talk about water content. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post. Asked for the storage condition behind the stability statement. Got it in a sentence. It is a two-line email and almost nobody sends it. The document I was worried about turned out to be a…
UV at 214nm sees the peptide bond and picks up almost everything; at 280nm you are looking at aromatics only. Which wavelength the number came from is part of the number.
The PDF creation date being later than the analysis date is usually a re-issue or a re-export. It is worth one question and it is not evidence of anything on its own.
ask for the storage condition the stability statement was written against
Small fix — 214nm, not 280nm. It matters here because the impurity you are asking about barely absorbs at the longer wavelength.
UV at 214nm sees the peptide bond and picks up almost everything; at 280nm you are looking at aromatics only.
emeka_chowdhury has the distinction right — one is a fraction of the detector signal, the other is a fraction of the mass.
What does the method line actually say? Not the technique — the column and the gradient.