The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Analytics · Method validation · continued

Repeatability versus intermediate precision posts 91–120

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.

SO
s.oyelaranTL2 Moderator29 Jun 2025#91

Picking up post #88: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

2 likes 13mo
O
OTeixeiraTL329 Jun 2025#92
NZ
n.zielinskiTL2 Moderator29 Jun 2025#93
a.asante, post #52: Transfer between laboratories: a method can be transferred from one lab to another, but the receiving lab needs to demonstrate that they can achieve the same performance. This requires comparative testing and sometimes small method refinements. Go to post

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.

20 likes in reply to #52 13mo
M
MJayawardenaTL3Regular29 Jun 2025#94
two_year_line, post #73: System suitability: injections run at the start of a batch to establish that the instrument and column are performing. Acceptance criteria typically include replicate precision (RSD ≤2%), peak tailing (0.8–1.5), theoretical plates (>2000), and resolution (>1.5). Go to post

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.

0 likes in reply to #73 13mo
BT
b.teixeiraTL2 Moderator29 Jun 2025#95

This follows post #92 rather than contradicting it.

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.

0 likes 13mo
EM
endpoint_marginTL2Member29 Jun 2025#96

Forced degradation studies: deliberately stress the material with acid, base, oxidant, heat, light to generate degradation products and demonstrate that the method can separate them from the parent peak. Acceptance is that the method is stability-indicating.

5 likes 13mo
AK
ar.kravchenkoTL2 Moderator29 Jun 2025 · edited#97

Range: the concentration range over which the method has been validated. Going outside the validated range is going outside the method's demonstrated performance.

14 likes 13mo
ED
e.dalgleishTL3Regular29 Jun 2025#98
s.cabrera, post #86: post #85 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. 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. Go to post

Limits of detection and quantitation: LOD is the lowest concentration that produces a signal above background. LOQ is the lowest concentration at which the method meets precision and accuracy acceptance criteria. Both are determined empirically.

28 likes in reply to #86 13mo
KH
ka.haddadTL2 Moderator30 Jun 2025#99

Linearity: the detector response is proportional to compound concentration across the working range. Demonstrated by running standards at multiple concentrations and showing R-squared values typically ≥0.99.

8 likes 13mo
AS
a.salcedoTL3Regular30 Jun 2025#100

Precision and repeatability: within-run and between-run variability of the method. Acceptance criterion is typically a relative standard deviation of ≤2% for area measurements.

19 likes 13mo
AR
ambient_reviewTL3Regular30 Jun 2025#101

Picking up post #98: that is the part I would want checked first.

Stability-indicating method: one that can separate a compound from its degradation products. Critical for assay methods that claim to measure actual degradation (as opposed to purity, which is orthogonal).

0 likes 13mo
AP
a.petrovTL2 Moderator30 Jun 2025#102

Coming back to post #100, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Transfer between laboratories: a method can be transferred from one lab to another, but the receiving lab needs to demonstrate that they can achieve the same performance. This requires comparative testing and sometimes small method refinements.

2 likes 13mo
JH
j.habermannTL3Regular30 Jun 2025#103
t.verhoeven, post #70: For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use. Go to post

System suitability: injections run at the start of a batch to establish that the instrument and column are performing. Acceptance criteria typically include replicate precision (RSD ≤2%), peak tailing (0.8–1.5), theoretical plates (>2000), and resolution (>1.5).

13 likes in reply to #70 13mo
NS
ni.stanescuTL2 Moderator30 Jun 2025#104
n.zielinski, post #93: 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. Go to post

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

27 likes in reply to #93 13mo
NT
n.torrenceTL3Regular30 Jun 2025#105

This follows post #102 rather than contradicting it.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

0 likes 13mo
KA
k.agyemanTL2 Moderator30 Jun 2025#106

Robustness: the method gives consistent results when minor parameters vary. Tested by deliberately varying pH, temperature, flow rate, and mobile phase composition within reasonable ranges and demonstrating that results stay within acceptance.

0 likes 13mo
SP
s.poulsenTL3Regular30 Jun 2025 · edited#107
dr_okonkwo, post #83: Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing. The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough. Go to post

Accuracy: the method measures what you intend to measure. For purity methods, this is tested by spike-and-recover experiments: add a known amount of impurity to a sample and measure whether you recover the added amount.

8 likes in reply to #83 13mo
MA
mi.almeidaTL2 Moderator1 Jul 2025#108

Worth separating two things that post #104 runs together.

Precision and repeatability: within-run and between-run variability of the method. Acceptance criterion is typically a relative standard deviation of ≤2% for area measurements.

20 likes 13mo
RM
r.marsdenTL3Regular1 Jul 2025#109
i.lehtinen, post #48: Picking up post #45: that is the part I would want checked first. 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. Go to post

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.

28 likes in reply to #48 13mo
NS
n.serranoTL2 Moderator1 Jul 2025#110

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

0 likes 13mo
PP
peak_purityTL3Analytical chemist1 Jul 2025 · edited#111

Forced degradation studies: deliberately stress the material with acid, base, oxidant, heat, light to generate degradation products and demonstrate that the method can separate them from the parent peak. Acceptance is that the method is stability-indicating.

1 like 13mo
SD
s.dialloTL2 Moderator1 Jul 2025#112
e.dalgleish, post #98: Limits of detection and quantitation: LOD is the lowest concentration that produces a signal above background. LOQ is the lowest concentration at which the method meets precision and accuracy acceptance criteria. Both are determined empirically. Go to post

System suitability: injections run at the start of a batch to establish that the instrument and column are performing. Acceptance criteria typically include replicate precision (RSD ≤2%), peak tailing (0.8–1.5), theoretical plates (>2000), and resolution (>1.5).

0 likes in reply to #98 13mo
NG
np_gilmoreTL3Nurse practitioner1 Jul 2025#113

Coming back to post #111, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Limits of detection and quantitation: LOD is the lowest concentration that produces a signal above background. LOQ is the lowest concentration at which the method meets precision and accuracy acceptance criteria. Both are determined empirically.

18 likes 13mo
JE
j.erdoganTL2 Moderator1 Jul 2025#114

Picking up post #111: that is the part I would want checked first.

Range: the concentration range over which the method has been validated. Going outside the validated range is going outside the method's demonstrated performance.

7 likes 13mo
MP
mira.patelTL4 Admin1 Jul 2025#115
d.oyelaran, post #24: Precision and repeatability: within-run and between-run variability of the method. Acceptance criterion is typically a relative standard deviation of ≤2% for area measurements. Go to post
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

Transfer between laboratories: a method can be transferred from one lab to another, but the receiving lab needs to demonstrate that they can achieve the same performance. This requires comparative testing and sometimes small method refinements.

4 likes in reply to #24 13mo
GR
g.rasmussenTL2 Moderator1 Jul 2025#116
np_gilmore, post #113: Coming back to post #111, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Limits of detection and quantitation: LOD is the lowest concentration that produces a signal above background. LOQ is the lowest concentration at which the method meets precision and accuracy acceptance criteria. Both are determined empirically. Go to post

Stability-indicating method: one that can separate a compound from its degradation products. Critical for assay methods that claim to measure actual degradation (as opposed to purity, which is orthogonal).

0 likes in reply to #113 13mo
OB
owen.bradyTL4 Moderator2 Jul 2025#117

I read post #115 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

25 likes 13mo
MO
m.onwukaTL2 Moderator2 Jul 2025#118

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.

12 likes 13mo
HM
h.mensahTL2 Moderator2 Jul 2025#119

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

0 likes 13mo
LP
l.piresTL2 Moderator2 Jul 2025#120

post #119 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Linearity: the detector response is proportional to compound concentration across the working range. Demonstrated by running standards at multiple concentrations and showing R-squared values typically ≥0.99.

26 likes 13mo