Figure 14 reverts to the minor co-elution scenario from figure 11. In addition, a small peak with a o/oo value of -50 is shown. What would the effect be if this peak occurred at the same time as our original peak ?
Figure 15 shows what would happen if the small -50 peak occurred at the same time as our original peak. We show the peak in red, but it doesn't show up that way on the display, only as a higher peak in grey. The measured value is now -32.1. It is really -27.
Figure 16 again reverts to the minor co-elution scenario of figure 11. This time we have a small peak with o/oo value of -25, which is less negative than our peaks of interest. Harmless enough, you may think. What would happen if this peak occurred between our minor co-eluting peaks?
Figure 17 places the small -25 peak between the two peaks with minor co-elution. It’s presence has masked where our original peak begins. The measured value for the peak is now -31.6. The true value remains -27.
This series of figures illustrates how the interference between peaks can dramatically alter the measured o/oo value of a peak. In many of the above cases, it would not be possible to determine the true o/oo value.
In Fig 17, is our peak sitting on a sloping background? No, it isn’t, but it may look like it is in context.
As demonstrated in Figure 9, if it had been genuine linear sloping background, we may have recovered the true o/oo value of -27. Instead, we measured a value of -31.6.
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the effect of a small but significantly negative peak co-eluting with our original peak. Again, this would not be detectable from the data that is available, the M=44 and M=45 traces.
In Part V, having gotten all this background, we'll look at what Herr Doktor Professor Wolfram Meier-Augenstein was saying in just a few slides of his presentation at the hearing.