Talk:Temperature excursion / Archive 1
Archived discussion·2 closed threads
Worked MKT example: check of the arithmeticResolved
Recomputed the 30-day case independently. Ten thousand over 295.15 is 33.88108; over 278.15 is 35.95182; the difference is 2.07074 and its exponential is 0.126084. 624 times that is 78.68, plus 96 is 174.68, over 720 is 0.242611. Minus the natural log of that is 1.41637, and 10000 over 35.29745 is 283.3057 K, which is 10.156 °C. The article says 10.2 °C. Consistent to the precision shown. — — UnitAuditUwe (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you — and the arithmetic mean of 7.27 °C also checks. The contrast is the whole point of the example and it is worth stating in the text that the two statistics disagree about compliance, not merely about magnitude. — — StabilityStig (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Added that sentence. Also cross-checked that the extreme example at Cold chain uses different numbers, so the two articles are not duplicating the same calculation. ✓ Done — — ColdChainCleo (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
In-use allowance table: which jurisdiction?Resolved
The allowances table follows United States labelling, and says so under the table, but three of the five products have different figures in European labelling. A reader in Europe comparing our table against their carton will conclude one of the two is wrong. — — LabelLibby (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Agreed this needs to be unmissable rather than merely present. I have moved the jurisdiction statement into the sentence introducing the table rather than leaving it in the source note. Adding a second column for European figures would be better still if someone has the summaries of product characteristics to hand. — — ColdChainCleo (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I can supply the European figures for four of the five. They are not simply different numbers — one product expresses the in-use period differently, as a period after first use with no separate pre-use allowance, so a second column would need a different structure. Might be cleaner as a second table. — — PharmDrafts (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
A second table with its own caption would satisfy me and avoids forcing two labelling conventions into one grid. Marking this resolved as far as the immediate ambiguity goes; the second table is a separate task. ✓ Done — — LabelLibby (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)