by
lmh » Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:13 pm
No criticism whatsoever of the original poster or anyone else obliged to work this way but:
if you are identifying something by chromatography, then look at it this way: divide the length of your chromatogram by the acceptable window size. You will probably find that your chromatogram is not much longer than 100 windows, so you have a 1% chance that a purely randomly-chosen chemical will elute in the acceptable window of the thing whose identity you wish to confirm.
In fact the situation is far worse, because often the likely alternative things you would find are related to the target compound, and are more likely to elute in the same region than at a wildly different retention time. And the peaks tend to be clustered in any method anyway.
In effect, if you are identifying by retention time, you can only be sure you're right, if you know that all the alternative chemicals that might be present don't coelute. If that's the case, the big question is where do they elute? If none elute within 5 minutes of the target compound, you could actually have a 4 minute window. If one elutes only 2 seconds away, then you're going to need a very tiny window indeed.
What I'm trying to say is that Kristof's approach is correct in so far as he's saying "if the peak is closer than this, then its retention time doesn't differ with statistical significance; if it is further, it does, and must be something different". But the approach is inadequate in that lack of statistically signficantly different retention time is a truly terrible guarantee that the chemicals detected in two runs are identical. A statistical approach is attractive but inappropriate: in the end you do need to know whether the method can distinguish the target compound from the nearest mistakeable alternative that could happen, and no amount of clever statistics will tell you the retention times of the two.
Chromatography doesn't identify things, it only separates them. Chromatography with non-selective detection is, I'm sure, fundamentally unsafe unless you know what's in your matrix.