why does nobody talk about purity
Right, the COA question again, but with numbers this time. I have 8 data points over 20 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign. The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing…
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 98.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
What were the related substances listed individually?
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Disagree on that part. 99.3% and 93.7% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is related substances. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is related substances.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.