Method identification means enough to reproduce: column chemistry, dimensions, gradient, flow, wavelength. A method name alone identifies a family of methods.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
Topic summary
A certificate with no method stated: what can you conclude?
This is a generated summary. It shows the 8 most-liked posts from a topic of 58, 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.
A certificate is a statement by its issuer that a defined test was performed on a defined lot and produced a defined result. That is all it is, and it is not nothing.
The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.
32 likes 16mo
Taking post #10 at face value and following it one step further.
A chromatogram supplied as a small image is legible for peak shape and not for baseline detail. That is enough to sanity-check an integration and not enough to reproduce it.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
24 likes 16mo
Building on post #25 rather than restating it.
The distinction between release testing and characterisation is one industrial documents make and retail ones usually do not. It is the difference between "we tested every lot for this" and "we established this once".
20 likes 16mo
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
22 likes 16mo
Bramley, post #15: Post #14 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. The fields that make one usable: lot identifier matching the container, test date, method identification specific enough to reproduce, the result as a number, and the acceptance criterion stated separately from the result. I would rather say I do not know… Go to post
An itemised related-substances table with retention times says considerably more about the synthesis than a single total. A total tells you how much is not the main peak and nothing about what it is.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
The arithmetic in post #52 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Method identification means enough to reproduce: column chemistry, dimensions, gradient, flow, wavelength. A method name alone identifies a family of methods.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
27 likes 16mo
Read the full topic (58 posts)
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis Everything below is what sits behind that. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin field-by-field walk…
|
+136 | 147 | 1.8k | 12mo |
|
A checklist for reading a certificate in under two minutes — does this still hold?
A checklist for reading a certificate in under two minutes — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I would like to understand what this…
|
+49 | 55 | 15k | 9mo |
|
What a certificate commits its issuer to — the long version
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What a certificate commits its issuer to — the long version A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a certificate in front…
|
+20 | 26 | 21k | 2d |
|
Second pass at: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis
Second pass at: A field-by-field walk through a certificate of analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about field-by-field walk through a…
|
+149 | 164 | 36k | 19mo |
|
Counter-ion form: the field almost nobody reports — one year on
On the subject in the title: Counter-ion form: the field almost nobody reports — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. The question about Counter-ion form that I actually want answered is the…
|
+121 | 139 | 31k | 16mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags certificate of analysis, batch & lot numbers, documentation quality
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reconciling a label claim with a content assay
On the subject in the title: Reconciling a label claim with a content assay Working notes rather than a conclusion. The question about reconciling a label claim that I actually want answered is the second one…
|
+2 | 6 | 183 | 4mo |
|
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern — the long version
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
+137 | 152 | 46k | 16mo |
|
Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated
Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin comparing documentation quality…
|
+7 | 11 | 29k | 19h |
|
Batch numbers that do not match the vial label — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Batch numbers that do not match the vial label — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Batch numbers is wrong? I ask…
|
+39 | 43 | 14k | 1mo |
|
Coming back to: Why our vendor pages link the storefront and mark it sponsored
Why our vendor pages link the storefront and mark it sponsored I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Reading back through what has been written here about…
|
2 | 22k | 8h |