Method optimization level selection

The levels selected in a robustness test are different from those at which factors are evaluated in method optimization. For optimization purposes the variables are examined in a broad interval. In robustness testing the levels are much less distant. They represent the (somewhat exaggerated) variations in the values of the variables that could occur when a method is transferred. For instance, in optimization the levels for pH would be several units apart, while in robustness testing the difference could be 0.2 pH units. The levels can for instance be defined based on the uncertainty with which a factor level can be set and re.set 36 and usually they are situated around the method (nominal) conditions if the method specifies pH 4.0, the levels would be 3.9 and 4.1. The experimental designs used are in both situations the same and comprise fractional factorial and Plackett-Burman designs. 

The analysis of VOCs in water and solid samples is complex due to the large number of compounds to be analyzed and because precaution has to be taken to provide accurate and reliable results. The use of P T-GC-MS is the most adequate for trace analysis of VOCs because limits of detection at the ng/L levels can be achieved and confirmatory analysis can be performed. Although P T is a well-established technique, several analytical parameters can be optimized to obtain high sensitivity and selectivity. Eor the specific target analytes, method optimization and quality assurance are necessary. The main drawbacks of this technique result from the fact that high purity gases are required and that the system can... 

In method optimization, the range between the levels is much larger than in robustness tests. Often, the range selected for a factor in optimization represents the broadest interval in which the factor can be varied with the technique considered. In practice, the examined range is chosen based on earlier gathered knowledge and/or information from the literature. 

Table 3.5 shows the three electrophoretic factors and levels selected in which experimental optimization, in terms of overall response (% conversion), could be performed. A design matrix was then generated for the Box-Behnken study (Table 3.6). It was found that voltage and mixing time, when combined, had a significant effect on % conversion. Here, the extent of contact between substrate and enzyme is dictated by the difference in electrophoretic mobilities, which is in turn dictated by mixing time and voltage. Such an interaction would not have been possible by use of classical univariate optimization methods.

Besides the generators described above there are X-ray sources based on radioactive materials to provide the excitation of the sample. The advantage of using these materials is that an isotope can be selected to provide a mono-energetic beam of radiation that is optimized for the specific application. One method consists to select a radionuclide that is transformed by internal electron capture (lEC). This mode of decomposition corresponds to the transition of one level-K electron into the nucleus of the atom. For a nuclide X, the phenomenon is summarized as follows ... 

This optimization method, which represents the mathematical techniques, is an extension of the classic method and was the first, to our knowledge, to be applied to a pharmaceutical formulation and processing problem. Fonner et al. [15] chose to apply this method to a tablet formulation and to consider two independent variables. The active ingredient, phenylpropanolamine HC1, was kept at a constant level, and the levels of disintegrant (corn starch) and lubricant (stearic acid) were selected as the independent variables, X and Xj. The dependent variables include tablet hardness, friability, volume, in vitro release rate, and urinary excretion rate in human subjects. 

When comparing different computational approaches to enzyme systems, several different factors have to be considered, e.g., differences in high-level (QM) method, QM/MM implementation, optimization method, model selection etc. This makes it very difficult to compare different QM/MM calculations on the same system. Even comparisons with an active-site model are not straightforward. It can be argued that adding a larger part of the system into calculaton always should make the calculation more accurate. At the same time, introducing more variables to the calculation also increases the risk of artificial effects. 

---