|
|
|
|
|
by kragen
1628 days ago
|
|
> Many of the types of analysis listed here are elemental analysis only, which are useless for trying to identify pharmaceutical analytes or determine their concentration. That's mostly true, but if a pill has significant amounts of lead, arsenic, and mercury in it, you know something went wrong, and you shouldn't take it. Even XRF might be enough to allow you to safely use lead-based or arsenic-based catalysts in your synthesis. > Out of all of these, microfluidic liquid chromatography is the least science fiction. There's plenty of literature about it but nobody really "has it working", and the reality is that it's not likely to ever have the same capability as benchtop HPLC. Thanks! Can you think of any other plausibly miniaturizable general-purpose analysis techniques? Those are just the ones I came up with off the top of my head. I think microfluidic liquid chromatography doesn't actually have to run faster than the bear, just faster than color-changing DanceSafe test kits. As for science fiction, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29816434 talks a bit about how today's science fiction is tomorrow's old news. |
|