Talk:Loss on drying

Discussion page·2 threads·no archives

This is the discussion page for the article Loss on drying. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.

Double countingResolved

The double-counting risk when both loss on drying and residual solvents are subtracted is a real arithmetic error and I have seen certificates where it has clearly happened. Good that it is stated. — KarlFischerKit (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The table makes the overlap visible, which is what the prose alone was not doing. ✓ Done — Areapercent_Ayo (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Resolved. This thread is closed. Reopening it is fine if new sources appear; please add a new subsection rather than editing the closed discussion.

High figures are not defectsDone

Important that the article says a high water figure is not evidence of a defect. Hygroscopicity is a property of lyophilised peptide, not a failure. — BalanceBirdie (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

And the observation that a very low figure is also worth attention keeps it symmetrical. ✓ Done — LyophilLena (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Done. This thread is closed. Reopening it is fine if new sources appear; please add a new subsection rather than editing the closed discussion.

This page was last edited on 15 April 2026, by LyophilLena. Text is available under the PeptidePedia Wiki Content Licence (PPCL-BY-SA 4.0).