Limit of detection: difference between revisions
Diff·revision 15 → 16·15:53, 12 Jul 2025
Difference between revision 15 and revision 16 of Limit of detection. 5 lines changed; the page grew by 549 bytes.
| Revision 15 — 13:42, 17 Jun 2025 AnalyticalAnnie (talk) correct the flow rate — the source gives it in mL/min 4,001 bytes ±0 | Revision 16 — 15:53, 12 Jul 2025 ColumnOvenCoy (talk) add the peptide-content point: area percent alone cannot give a mass 4,550 bytes +549 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | Research-chemical certificates rarely state any of these, which is why "no other peaks observed" is uninformative without the method behind it. The statement may reflect a clean material or a method with a high detection limit, and nothing in the document distinguishes the two.{{r|usp1503}} | 33 | Research-chemical certificates rarely state any of these, which is why "no other peaks observed" is uninformative without the method behind it. The statement may reflect a clean material or a method with a high detection limit, and nothing in the document distinguishes the two.{{r|usp1503}} |
| 34 | 34 | ||
| + | 35 | == Practical consequences == | |
| + | 36 | Two certificates reporting different numbers of impurities may describe identical material analysed by methods of different sensitivity. The one listing more impurities is not describing worse material; it may simply be looking harder.{{r|ich_q2}} | |
| + | 37 | ||
| + | 38 | This inverts the naive reading. An itemised related-substances table listing six impurities at 0.05–0.2% is evidence of a sensitive method and a transparent report; a certificate stating "purity 99.9%, no other peaks" may be evidence of a method that cannot see them. | |
| + | 39 | ||
| 35 | == References == | 40 | == References == |
| 36 | {{reflist}} | 41 | {{reflist}} |