Specificity: the method can distinguish the intended compound from related impurities and degradation products. Tested by comparing results on pure compounds, mixtures of compounds, and degraded samples.
Topic summary
Coming back to: When to suspect the method rather than the sample
This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 136, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
post #65 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Why two laboratories may disagree: after validating the same method, they may still report different purity on the same sample due to integration differences, column age differences, subtle differences in mobile phase pH or temperature. This is normal and not a sign that one is wrong.
32 likes 19mo
Worth separating two things that post #79 runs together.
Specificity: the method can distinguish the intended compound from related impurities and degradation products. Tested by comparing results on pure compounds, mixtures of compounds, and degraded samples.
29 likes 19mo
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
31 likes 19mo
Specificity: the method can distinguish the intended compound from related impurities and degradation products. Tested by comparing results on pure compounds, mixtures of compounds, and degraded samples.
32 likes 19mo
Read the full topic (136 posts)
This topic was referenced in
- Coming back to: Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteriaAnalytics › Method validation · 99 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Validating a method you did not develop
On the subject in the title: Validating a method you did not develop Working notes rather than a conclusion. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it anywhere. A VendorInvestigate…
|
+10 | 14 | 15k | 3mo |
|
Revisiting: Spike-and-recover accuracy for a peptide assay
Revisiting: Spike-and-recover accuracy for a peptide assay — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it anywhere.…
|
2 | 6.8k | 21h | |
|
Why one laboratory's 98.4% and another's 96.1% may not contradict — one year on
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why one laboratory's 98.4% and another's 96.1% may not contradict — one year on Working through the identity arithmetic and I would like it…
|
+10 | 14 | 13k | 5mo |
|
Revisiting: Sample handling between despatch and injection
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Sample handling between despatch and injection Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three…
|
+5 | 9 | 1.1k | 6mo |
|
LOD and LOQ: definitions people get wrong
LOD and LOQ: definitions people get wrong — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a certificate in front of me that…
|
2 | 43k | 8mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags precision & repeatability, LOD & LOQ, linearity
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteria
Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteria Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to understand what this…
|
+44 | 48 | 12k | 1d |
|
A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial — does this still hold?
A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Working through the…
|
+2 | 6 | 15k | 11h |
|
Validating a method you did not develop
On the subject in the title: Validating a method you did not develop Working notes rather than a conclusion. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it anywhere. A VendorInvestigate…
|
+10 | 14 | 15k | 3mo |
|
When to suspect the method rather than the sample
When to suspect the method rather than the sample — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three replies…
|
+109 | 115 | 63k | 15mo |
|
Relative retention time as a better inter-laboratory comparator — does this still hold?
Relative retention time as a better inter-laboratory comparator — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A documentation question…
|
+11 | 15 | 21k | 21mo |