Dr.AddMedPHL said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardslucas_SP_BR said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
lucas_SP_BR said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.