What a reversed-phase purity number actually is

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.

Reversed-phase separates on hydrophobicity. A peptide is retained on a non-polar stationary phase and eluted by increasing organic solvent. For peptides the mobile phase almost always contains an ion-pairing acid, typically 0.1% TFA, which suppresses secondary interactions and sharpens peaks.

On post #14 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Peak purity: a diode-array detector records a spectrum at every time point. If a peak contains two co-eluting species with different spectra, the spectrum changes across the peak. A passing peak-purity result says the spectrum is constant; it is weak evidence of homogeneity if the impurities have similar spectra.

This follows post #16 rather than contradicting it.

Area percent is not mass percent. It is a proportion of absorbance, weighted by each species' extinction coefficient. For closely related impurities the approximation is usually good. For structurally dissimilar impurities it can be poor.

Gradient slope is the single biggest driver of apparent purity differences. A shallower gradient over a longer run resolves more impurities and gives a higher purity figure. A steep gradient produces a tidier-looking chromatogram with fewer visible peaks and gives a lower purity figure. Both are legitimate methods and they will not produce the same number.

On integration: where the baseline is drawn matters more than most people realise. On a clean chromatogram with well-resolved peaks the choice is inconsequential. On a chromatogram with a trailing shoulder or a rising baseline it matters. Differences of one to two percentage points between defensible integrations are ordinary.

This is why a purity figure without the underlying chromatogram is weaker evidence than it appears. It is also why two competent laboratories can report different numbers on the same vial without either being wrong.

Worth separating two things that post #19 runs together.

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.

post #23 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Column chemistry and particle size: smaller particles (1.7 μm) give better resolution and higher efficiency than larger particles (3.5 μm or 5 μm), at the cost of higher back pressure. Newer methods increasingly use smaller particles.

Coming back to post #23, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

System suitability testing: injections run before and during the sample run to establish whether the instrument, column and method were performing when the sample was analysed. If suitability did not pass, the sample results from that run are uninterpretable.

Method validation is the demonstration that a method can separate the compound from its degradation products and impurities reliably. A method that cannot resolve an impurity from the parent peak will not detect that impurity.

This is why a purity figure without the underlying chromatogram is weaker evidence than it appears. It is also why two competent laboratories can report different numbers on the same vial without either being wrong.

post #27 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Column chemistry and particle size: smaller particles (1.7 μm) give better resolution and higher efficiency than larger particles (3.5 μm or 5 μm), at the cost of higher back pressure. Newer methods increasingly use smaller particles.

I read post #27 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

System suitability testing: injections run before and during the sample run to establish whether the instrument, column and method were performing when the sample was analysed. If suitability did not pass, the sample results from that run are uninterpretable.

This follows post #27 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.