Some more; consolidated index in the main post on this series of released documents.
Ex 86 - April testing of 825428 - LNDD 824 (Landis from 28-Jul)
Ex 87 - April testing of 825429 - LNDD 922 (Landis from 22-Jul)
Ex 89 - April testing of 825423 - LNDD 1193 (Aguilera control)
Ex 90 - April testing of 825425 - LNDD 1207 (Landis from 14-Jul)
Ex 92 - April testing of 993865 - LNDD 1398 (Landis from 3-Jul)
Ex 93 - April testing of 825427 - LNDD 1492 (Aguilera control)
We don't see why Ex 92 on LNDD 1488 gives no value reported for the 5aA -pdiol. There are plenty of peaks in the region on LNDD 1466/1467, including one at 1358s reading -28.28 (w/pdiol -26.94 == -1.34). Was there a peak identification problem or a perception of matrix interference? If it's matrix interference, what criteria were used to decide that had happened?
Also, on Ex 92, why was peak 3 at 881 selected as the 5aAC IS instead of peak 2 at 873, when the SOP says to adjust the pressure to the IS is at 870s. Similarly, looking at Ex 86, we don't see how on LNDD 894/895, "peak 10" at 882s was selected as the 5aAC instead of "peak 9" at 874.3s, or why the two peaks following the "peak 22" "pdiol" were not identified and computed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.