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.
post #90 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
On post #88 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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).
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.
post #94 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Range: the concentration range over which the method has been validated. Going outside the validated range is going outside the method's demonstrated performance.
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).
I read post #96 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
post #100 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Coming back to post #106, 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.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #106 runs together.
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.
Coming back to post #109, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Picking up post #109: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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.
| 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 |
|
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 | |
|
Coming back to: When to suspect the method rather than the sample
When to suspect the method rather than the sample I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three…
|
+116 | 135 | 42k | 19mo |
|
Repeatability versus intermediate precision
Repeatability versus intermediate precision — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three replies will otherwise be.…
|
+119 | 134 | 34k | 13mo |
|
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 |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Where the integrator drew the baseline, and how much it moved the number
Where the integrator drew the baseline, and how much it moved the number — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three…
|
+20 | 24 | 1.6k | 8mo |
|
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 |
|
Coming back to: Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteria
On the subject in the title: Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteria Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting the method first, because I know what the first…
|
+93 | 99 | 1.4k | 6d |
|
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 |
|
Coming back to: What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine Posting the method first, because I know what the first three replies will otherwise be.…
|
+4 | 8 | 25k | 22mo |