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.
Coming back to post #89, 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.
Range: the concentration range over which the method has been validated. Going outside the validated range is going outside the method's demonstrated performance.
post #93 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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 #93 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
This follows post #93 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
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.
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.
Coming back to post #101, 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.
Picking up post #101: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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).
I read post #105 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.
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).
On post #105 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
post #109 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.
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.
post #112 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
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).
I read post #114 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteria — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteria — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Working through the identity…
|
+53 | 58 | 7.5k | 6mo |
|
Robustness: the parameters worth deliberately varying
Robustness: the parameters worth deliberately varying Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a…
|
+53 | 57 | 664 | 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 |
|
Sample handling between despatch and injection
Sample handling between despatch and injection Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three replies will…
|
+63 | 68 | 2.4k | 3mo |
|
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 |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Second pass at: LOD and LOQ: definitions people get wrong
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: LOD and LOQ: definitions people get wrong Everything below is what sits behind that. Working through the identity arithmetic and I would like it…
|
+47 | 51 | 40k | 10mo |
|
Follow-up: Comparing two chromatograms from different laboratories, properly
Comparing two chromatograms from different laboratories, properly — 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…
|
+62 | 67 | 12k | 9h |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |