Talk:Area percent purity / Archive 1
Archived discussion·2 closed threads
The worked example — check the arithmeticResolved
Working it through: 5 × 0.95 = 4.75, and 4.75 × 0.88 = 4.18. So 4.18 mg, 83.6% of 5 mg. That is what the article says. Recording the check here so the next editor does not have to repeat it. — Areapercent_Ayo (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed, and the 12% trifluoroacetate assumption is on the ordinary side rather than the extreme side for a basic peptide, which is the right choice for an illustrative example. — TFA_Counterion (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Worth stating in the text that the assumptions are illustrative and not measured on any particular material, so nobody quotes 83.6% as a finding. — LOD_Lorcan (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Clause added, immediately after the arithmetic so it cannot be quoted away from it. ✓ Resolved — Areapercent_Ayo (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Detection wavelength: 214 or 220?Done
The article gives 214 nm as the usual detection wavelength. 220 nm is at least as common in practice and is less sensitive to mobile-phase absorbance. Should both be named? — IsocraticIla (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Both are used and the article's point does not turn on which. What matters is the contrast with 280 nm, where a related substance without an aromatic residue disappears entirely. Name 214 as typical, note that the region is used generally, keep 280 as the contrast. — GradientGus (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support. Naming three wavelengths in one sentence would bury the only part a non-chromatographer needs. ✓ Done — PeakShapePol (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)