Log in
Register|
auditor ★ India, 2011-12-10 09:03 (5313 d 16:40 ago) Posting: # 7769 Views: 4,370 |
|
|
Dear All, first of all let me explain my understanding on the usage of area and area ratio for concluding recovery and aqueous stability. I feel that if we use area instead of area ratio to conclude recovery and aqueous stability then we can get better understanding of analyte in respective media and the obtain results reflect exact analyte results. Now in some of the organization where i am going for audit purpose i have seen that they are using area ratio instead of area for concluding this two experiment. In this case i need your suggestion about which tool is better to conclude the experiment. Regards, Auditor |
|
Ohlbe ★★★ France, 2011-12-11 23:10 (5312 d 02:33 ago) @ auditor Posting: # 7770 Views: 3,608 |
|
|
Dear Auditor, By aqueous stability I suppose that you mean stability in the stock and working solutions ? If this is the case I would indeed go for the peak area rather than area ratio. This is particularly important if a stable isotope labelled IS is being used: in such a case you can expect the analyte and the IS to have the same stability, or lack of stability: meaning that even if your signal decreases by 90 % the ratio will not be modified, and you will conclude that the analyte is stable... Regarding recovery I would also consider separately the analyte and the internal standard, as you need information on the recovery of both when developing your method. The ratio brings little relevant information, if any. Regards Ohlbe — Regards Ohlbe |
|
auditor ★ India, 2011-12-12 05:04 (5311 d 20:39 ago) @ Ohlbe Posting: # 7771 Views: 3,509 |
|
Ing. Helmut Schütz