Automated filling on a low-mass vial has a real tolerance and it is wider than most labels imply. A ±10 % index tolerance is generous against pharmacopoeial content uniformity and this record sits outside even that.
underfill_3to1
Gravimetric fill checks. Under-fill outnumbers over-fill three to one.
Section 1
Contribution
Both submits records and annotates other people's.
Records submitted
11
n=11
Annotations
6
n=6
Median purity submitted
98.62%
n=11
Suppliers covered
8
n=11
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.
Gravimetric fill checks in this index show under-fill outnumbering over-fill by roughly three to one. That asymmetry is a fill-target convention rather than a random process, and it is entirely legible once content is measured.
Seconded.
Purity at 97.36 % and recovery at 86.0 % are independent findings. High purity and low recovery is a formulation and fill result, not a synthesis one.
Thanks — that is the detail I was missing.
Showing 5 distinct comments of 6 annotations by this handle.