99.40 % on Semaglutide sits at the top of what this index sees. Read it with the method: Janoshik ran a 30 min gradient here, and the compound fingerprint names a mass-identical species that a shorter run folds into the main peak. On this gradient the figure is well founded.
peak_integrator
Integration practice and valley-to-valley vs drop-line. The boring half of purity.
Section 1
Contribution
Both submits records and annotates other people's.
Records submitted
13
n=13
Annotations
300
n=300
Median purity submitted
98.91%
n=13
Suppliers covered
11
n=13
Section 2
Records submitted
A submitter chose to buy this material and to pay for this assay. That choice is the selection mechanism behind the whole index and it is not random.
Section 3
Annotations
Signed technical comments on records. The index does not moderate annotations for agreement with its own arithmetic, and several of these disagree with it. Where a handle has made the same point on several records, one instance is shown and the rest are reachable from the records themselves.
Two laboratories with different gradients will resolve a close pair differently and report two honest, different purities. Neither is wrong and the difference is not a disagreement about the material.
The measured value on this record carries two decimals because the integration produced two. That is the honest form of the same quantity, and it is available from the supplier as well.
99.58 % on PT-141 (Bremelanotide) sits at the top of what this index sees. Read it with the method: PeptideMeter ran a 28 min gradient here, and the compound fingerprint names a mass-identical species that a shorter run folds into the main peak. On this gradient the figure is well founded.
Anyone comparing this purity figure against a result from a longer method should expect a difference of a few tenths in a predictable direction. The inter-lab page quantifies it per laboratory.
Resolution to the nearest named impurity is reported on this record with no verdict attached, which is the correct handling. A threshold on that figure would penalise compounds for their own impurity profiles.
Reporting threshold matters at this level. Peaks below threshold are excluded from the impurity total but included in the purity denominator, which biases 97.86 % upward by a systematic tenth or so. The gap here is larger than that.
99.74 % on BPC-157 sits at the top of what this index sees. Read it with the method: Kestrel ran a 15 min gradient here, and the compound fingerprint names a mass-identical species that a shorter run folds into the main peak. On this gradient the figure is well founded.
99.93 % on SS-31 (Elamipretide) sits at the top of what this index sees. Read it with the method: Kestrel ran a 15 min gradient here, and the compound fingerprint names a mass-identical species that a shorter run folds into the main peak. On this gradient the figure is well founded.
99.54 % on MOTS-c sits at the top of what this index sees. Read it with the method: Janoshik ran a 30 min gradient here, and the compound fingerprint names a mass-identical species that a shorter run folds into the main peak. On this gradient the figure is well founded.
99.52 % on GHRP-6 sits at the top of what this index sees. Read it with the method: Janoshik ran a 30 min gradient here, and the compound fingerprint names a mass-identical species that a shorter run folds into the main peak. On this gradient the figure is well founded.
99.43 % on Melanotan II sits at the top of what this index sees. Read it with the method: Medutest ran a 25 min gradient here, and the compound fingerprint names a mass-identical species that a shorter run folds into the main peak. On this gradient the figure is well founded.
Showing 12 distinct comments of 300 annotations by this handle.