Talk:Peptide content / Archive 1
Archived discussion·2 closed threads
Typical content range: is 70–90% defensible?Resolved
The infobox gives 70–90% as typical for a lyophilised trifluoroacetate salt. That is my experience too, but the article should say it is a range across ordinary material rather than a specification. — AAA_Analyst (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. The bottom of the range is a heavily basic peptide with high water; the top is an acidic sequence lyophilised dry. Both are ordinary, and quoting the range without that explanation invites a reader to treat 70% as a failure. — TFA_Counterion (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, and the water term should be attributed to the determination method, since loss on drying and Karl Fischer do not measure the same thing on a hygroscopic cake. — KarlFischerKit (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Both points written in. ✓ Resolved — AAA_Analyst (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Which convention does a nominal fill follow?Done
The subsection says a "5 mg" vial may be filled to 5 mg gross or 5 mg peptide. That is the most consequential sentence on the page and it is buried in a child section. — UnderfillUna (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
It is consequential and it is also the thing we are least able to source generally, because the convention is per-supplier and mostly unstated. Keeping it where the arithmetic is means a reader meets it at the point it bites. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Compromise: keep it there, and add the request — ask which convention the fill follows — to the list in Certificate of analysis, which is where a purchaser looks for what to ask. ✓ Done — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)