Accepted answer
At 40 °C it can show up as either, and which one depends entirely on whether the product still elutes under the main peak. Purity is a ratio of areas, so a degradant only costs purity if the method resolves it. Content is a mass against a standard, so a degradant costs content whenever the parent is consumed — resolved or not. Backbone amide bonds cleave, so every product is shorter than the parent and the mass ladder they leave behind is the evidence that it happened. That is why the two measurements are not interchangeable and why an unchanged purity figure after an excursion to 40 °C is weak evidence: the method may simply be integrating the degradant along with the parent and reporting the sum as one peak.
The short version: water enables most of it, oxygen enables oxidation, surfaces enable adsorption, and agitation enables aggregation.
Hydrolysis cleaves the backbone, most readily at aspartate-proline and aspartate-glycine sequences, and is acid-catalysed. In a dry solid it barely proceeds at all.
To be exact about it, adsorption onto glass and plastic is significant at low concentrations — micrograms per millilitre — and negligible at milligrams per millilitre. It is the usual explanation for an apparent loss in a dilute preparation.
Deamidation via the succinimide intermediate is well characterised, with sequence-dependent rates highest for asparagine-glycine motifs.
The caveat is that none of these pathways can be seen by looking at a vial, and a clear solution can be substantially degraded.
Cold, dry, dark, still. Those four words cover most of the mitigation.
I have kept vials both ways for a year and this matches what I saw. – petra_hovland 4 months ago add a comment