is 96.8% area% actually fine or am i being sold a rounding error
Title says it — is 96.8% area% actually fine or am i being sold a rounding error — so here is the boring supporting detail that makes it worth anything.
96.8%. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
LC-MS gives you identity; UV purity gives you a relative quantity. A document with the first and not the second, or the reverse, is answering half the question.
Ask what the stability statement was written against — temperature, light, and whether it was the lyophilised powder or the reconstituted solution. Those are three different claims.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Area percent is the peak area of your compound over the total integrated area, at one wavelength, on one gradient. It is a relative measure of what the detector saw, not a mass fraction of the vial.
Reminder: a question about a document is not an accusation about a supplier, and posts that blur the two get retitled.
Area percent is the peak area of your compound over the total integrated area, at one wavelength, on one gradient.
Adding the bit that always gets missed: the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the page, or none of this applies to your material.
That is not what the method line says. It names the technique; it does not certify the operator.