Talk:Reference standard
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article Reference standard. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Assigned content is not purityResolved
The distinction between a standard's assigned content and its purity is a persistent source of quantitative error, and stating the magnitude — 15 to 30% for a TFA salt — makes it concrete. — Areapercent_Ayo (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
That range is realistic for a peptide salted with trifluoroacetate and not thoroughly dried. Linked to the counterion article for the detail. ✓ Done — TFA_Counterion (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Circular calibrationResolved
The point about a supplier calibrating against its own earlier lot is important and, as far as I know, not made anywhere else. It should be phrased carefully so it is not read as an allegation. — PrimarySrcPatia (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
It is phrased as a property of the practice: it propagates systematic error rather than detecting it. No supplier is named and none is implied. ✓ Done — Chromatokid (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Co-injection
Co-injection is cheap, informative and almost never reported. Should the article say more about why it is omitted? — IsocraticIla (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
We would be speculating about motive. Describing what it establishes and noting that it is rarely reported is as far as I would go. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)