[Discussion] we are measuring LC-MS at the wrong time and calling it noise
The title is the argument: we are measuring LC-MS at the wrong time and calling it noise. Here is the rest of it.
SWB sent me the column, the gradient and the theoretical mass without being asked. That is a short list and they are on it.
Retention time shifted 0.4 minutes and I assumed the worst. It was the column temperature.
Gave the same trace to two people I trust and got two integrations about a point apart. That was the most educational afternoon I have had here.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Resolution between two peaks depends on retention, selectivity and efficiency. A shallower gradient buys retention and usually resolution, at the cost of peak width and run time.
Cosigning the wavelength point. Half the disagreements in this board are two people looking at different detectors.
Resolution between two peaks depends on retention, selectivity and efficiency.
cagrilintide_enthusiast is right — the integration choice is a decision and it should be stated alongside the result.
Retitled: the original claimed a comparison the post does not actually make.
Not convinced by that integration. Dropping the baseline there absorbs part of the shoulder into the main peak.