With (26) -or more correctly (25)-we can ensure that peak areas in the mobilogram stay faithful to those in the electropherogram. While our previous derivation, or that of , focus on this aspect, there is another issue that can severely affect peak integration: peak shape. Both the correction factor and the transformation itself may introduce distortions. Figure provides a few examples. The larger peak widths have been intentionally chosen to exaggerate the effects of the transformation, and real electropherograms will display milder effects. We can see that peaks closer to the EOF (case B) show, as expected, a greater increase in relative width in the mobilogram (corrected through their reduced height), but their shape remains largely Gaussian. Peaks of very short migration times (high mobilities, case A) present little broadening, but may display asymmetry if the peak width is comparable to the migration time. This asymmetry will complicate peak detection by peak-picking software. Nonetheless, note that case A2 is quite extreme, with its relative peak width being 40% of its migration time. Let us first focus on the asymmetry introduced only by the transformation. Suppose we have a peak centered in the electropherogram at t 0 , spanning from t -= t 0 -∆t to t + = t 0 + ∆t. By solving