Purity claim inflation: difference between revisions
Diff·revision 4 → 5·15:07, 20 Nov 2024
Difference between revision 4 and revision 5 of Purity claim inflation. 2 lines changed; the page grew by 432 bytes.
| Revision 4 — 02:47, 10 Nov 2024 EpitalonEoin (talk) expand §What a purity figure does establish 2,238 bytes ±0 | Revision 5 — 15:07, 20 Nov 2024 StubSorterBot (talk) bot: normalise citation format 2,670 bytes +432 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | None of these is necessarily improper. A short gradient may be entirely appropriate for a well-characterised material; aggregate reporting of related substances is standard in some contexts. What makes a presentation inflationary is the gap between what the method establishes and what the figure is used to assert.{{r|usp621}} | 21 | None of these is necessarily improper. A short gradient may be entirely appropriate for a well-characterised material; aggregate reporting of related substances is standard in some contexts. What makes a presentation inflationary is the gap between what the method establishes and what the figure is used to assert.{{r|usp621}} |
| 22 | 22 | ||
| + | 23 | The detection-wavelength point is the least appreciated. Peptide purity is usually determined at 214 nm, where the amide bond absorbs, so response is roughly proportional to the number of bonds and impurities are detected reasonably. A determination at 280 nm, where aromatic side chains absorb, will systematically under-detect impurities lacking those residues. Both are legitimate methods; they do not answer the same question. | |
| + | 24 | ||
| 23 | == References == | 25 | == References == |
| 24 | {{reflist}} | 26 | {{reflist}} |