I've been measuring relative fluorescence quantum for a photosensitive pigment. Most analytical articles and SOPs I've read suggest taking the average of multiple FQY measurements (at least 3) before calculating the standard deviation, which seems good; however, wouldn't comparing residual standard deviations (RSDs) of the linear regression of fluorescence intensity versus the absorbance of the dye standard (e.g. rhodamine B) and dye sample (e.g. hypericin) provide thorougher validation of the calibration fits and thus FQY? In other words, since the relative FQY is calculated from the slopes of these plots, can I glean more information by comparing the RSD of the plots and SD of the FQY?

I've been measuring relative fluorescence quantum yield (hereafter FQY) for a photosensitive pigment. Most analytical articles and standard operating procedures (SOPs) I've read suggest taking the average of multiple FQY measurements (at least 3) before calculating the standard deviation, which seems good; however, wouldn't comparing residual standard deviations (RSDs) of the linear regression of fluorescence intensity versus the absorbance of the dye standard (e.g. rhodamine B) and dye sample (e.g. hypericin) provide thorougher validation of the calibration fits and thus FQY? In other words, since the relative FQY is calculated from the slopes of these plots, can I glean more information by comparing the RSD of the plots and SD of the FQY?