Matrix effects evaluation

Ismaiel OA, Halquist MS, Elmamly MY et al (2008) Monitoring phospholipids for assessment of ion enhancement and ion suppression in ESI and APCI LC/MS/MS for chorpheniramine in human plasma and the importance of multiple source matrix effect evaluation. J Chromatogr B 875 333-343... 

Marchi I, Rudaz S, Veuthey JL (2009) Sample preparation development and matrix effects evaluation for multianalyte determination in urine. J Pharm Biomed Anal 49(2) 459—467. doi S0731-7085(08)00639-0 [pii] 10.1016/j.jpba.2008.11.040... 

Bravo-Sanchez, L.R. Encinar, J.R. Martinez, J.IE Sanz-Medel, A. Mercury speciation analysis in sea water by solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry using ethyl and propyl derivatization. Matrix effects evaluation. Spectrochim. Acta B. 2004, 59, 59-66. 

A fully automated instrumental procedure has been developed for analyzing residual corrosion inhibitors in production waters in the field. The method uses ultraviolet (UV) and fluorescence spectrophotometric techniques to characterize different types of corrosion inhibitors. Laboratory evaluations showed that fluorescence is more suitable for field application because errors from high salinity, contamination, and matrix effect are minimized in fluorescence analysis. Comparison of the automated fluorescence technique with the classic extraction-dye transfer technique showed definite advantages of the former with respect to ease, speed, accuracy, and precision [1658],... 

Sample matrix effect Dilute matrix if possible, check pH of matrix, increase the ionic strength of the buffer, re-evaluate matrix... 

Matrix effect Dilute matrix or re-evaluate matrix effects... 

Because of the possibility that the herbicide alachlor could adulterate food if either poultry or livestock consumed contaminated materials, Lehotay and Miller evaluated three commercial immunoassays in milk and urine samples from a cow dosed with alachlor. They found that milk samples needed to be diluted with appropriate solvents (1 2, v/v) to eliminate the matrix effect. One assay kit (selected based on cost) was also evaluated for use with eggs and liver samples from chickens. Egg and liver samples were blended with acetonitrile, filtered, and diluted with water. Linear calibration curves prepared from fortified egg and liver samples were identical... 

SFE has now been available long enough to allow an evaluation of its prospects for polymer/additive extraction. SFE is still around, but EPA and FDA approved SFE methods are still wanting. The main problem is strong matrix effects. SFE is not a cookbook method for one s matrix. Not unlike microwave extraction, SFE requires that a specific method be developed to optimise the recovery for each polymer/additive system. Therefore, the success of SFE depends on the polymer... 

Matrix effects were evaluated by Gago-Ferrero et al. [23]. Both signal suppression and signal enhancement were observed. The extent of these effects was found to be fairly dependent on the UV filter. Thus, quantification should be performed by standard addition or internal standard calibration. Since standard addition is a high time-consuming procedure, internal standard calibration with appropriate isotopi-cally labeled compounds is the best option. 

We therefore sought to evaluate reproducibility of shotgun proteomics in studies of archival FFPE tissue. Because FFPE samples are more complex than non-cross-linked samples, we evaluated FFPE human liver for analytical reproducibility and confidence in protein assignments.20 This complexity strengthens the argument for using high-resolution separations to maximize analyte concentration and minimize matrix effects. In this case, we used transient capillary isotachophoresis/capillary zone electrophoresis (cITP/cZE) in place of IEF to help address this effect. cITP/cZE has a resolution superior even to cIEF (90% of identified peptides in 1 fraction, 95% in 2 fractions or less for cITP/cZE, vs. 75% and 80%, respectively, for cIEF). 

Matrix effect — To demonstrate that the assay performance was independent from the sample matrix, QC samples were prepared using two different lots of matrix. The QC samples were evaluated using the same calibration curve. With regard to analytical recovery, no significant difference was observed for the QCs prepared in two lots of plasma. 

To improve the interfacial bonding between the PP fiber and a cementitious matrix, commercially available PP fibers with different geometries were fluori-nated and the effect evaluated with regard to crack control, impact resistance (AC1 Committee 544 Report), and water absorption (ASTM C-948).M,34a In all cases, as seen in Table 16.13, fluorination improved the induced properties. 

ICP-AES was validated for the simultaneous determination of Al, B, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Li, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, Sr and Zn in human serum in a clinical laboratory. The samples underwent digestion and yttrium was used as an internal standard. The LOD were as follows 0.002-0.003 (xM for Ba, Cd, Mn and Sr 0.014-0.07 (xM for Be, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Li, Ni, Pb and Zn and 0.2-0.9 (xM for Al, B and Se. The concentrations of Al, Be and Co in human serum were found to be above the LOD, while those of Cd, Cr, Ni and Pb were below the LOQ however, in case of acute intoxication with the latter elements the method is valid . Matrix effects were evaluated for ICP-AES analysis using solution nebulization and laser ablation (LA) techniques. The main matrix-related interferences stem from elements with a low second ionization potential however, these are drastically reduced when pure He is used as carrier gas. This points to Ar (the usual carrier) participation in the interference mechanism, probably by interacting with doubly charged species. ... 

Reference values of this approach are not different from those for other amino acid analyses. An example of a mass chromatogram, representing the plasma of a PKU patient, is shown in Fig. 2.1.1. When evaluating the results of MS/MS amino acid analyses, one has to reahze that the hquid chromatographic separation is by far less efficient that the AAA separation. For this reason, any amino acid may (partly) coelute with other amino acid(s), which potentially interferes with its mass spectromet-ric behavior. This effect is known as quenching. In order to overcome this as much as possible, stable-isotope-labeled internal standards (as many as possible) should be used. However, this matrix effect of ion suppression is the major pitfall in the MS/MS analysis of amino acids. Consequently, the MS/MS analysis of amino acids cannot be regarded as a reference method, similar to all other amino acid analytical methods. 

The developed biosensor should be, in principle, applicable to any sample suspicious of containing microcystins. This includes water samples, cyanobacterial cells and infected organisms. Whereas water samples could be directly applied to the biosensor, specific extraction protocols are required for the detection of the toxin in cyanobacteria and other organisms. In all the cases, matrix effects should be evaluated. 

On the other hand, in order to evaluate the matrix effect, fish samples have been spiked with the known concentration of methyl mercury before adding hydrochloride acid and mixed with tissue. 

Alternatively, matrix effects can be evaluated using postcolumn infusion methods described in detail in this chapter and elsewhere (King et al., 2000 Weng and Halls, 2002 Mei, 2005). 

As shown in Fig. 1.7, the method for evaluating ion suppression/enhancement encountered during a bioanalytical assay involves injection of a processed blank matrix sample on the column with continuous postcolumn infusion of a mixture of an analyte and an internal standard into the LC stream. The analyte and the internal standard are monitored (MRM or SRM scan) throughout the entire LC ran time while the matrix components are eluting from the column. Data from a matrix effect experiment obtained using the postcolumn addition method are given in Fig. 1.8. 

---