Response correction factor

Thermal conductivity detectors used in gas chromatographs do not respond equally to all FAMlis. To correct for varying detector sensitivity, peak area for each FAME should be multiplied by the proper response correction factor (RCF) (Table E6.2). If extra time is available, you may want to calculate your own response correction factors for the fatty acid methyl esters. The factors are experimentally determined on a gas chromatograph by comparing the area under a GC peak due to a known amount of compound to the area under a GC peak represented by a reference compound. 

The response correction factors for compound 1 and other compounds are calculated relative to the response correction factor for the reference, which is assumed to be 1.00. 

Theoretical response correction factors (RCF) for flame ionisation detectors to convert to weight percent methyl ester, and molecular weight correction factors (MWF) to convert to molar percent for some common fatty acids. 

Competitive antagonists affinity of, 261-264 description of, 75 IC50 correction factors for, 223 Schild analysis, 261-264 Concentration-dependent antagonism, 99 Concentration-response curve, 13 Confidence intervals, 228-229 Conformations, 13-14 Constitutive activity of receptors description of, 49—51 receptor density and, 56 Schild analysis, 108-111 Context-dependent biological effect, 188 Correction factors, 211-213, 223 Correlational research, 231 CP320626, 128... 

It is seen that errors in the smaller component can be as great as 12.5% (1.25% absolute) when the response index is 0.94. Yet on examining the curve for a response index of 0.94 in figure 2 the non-linearity is scarcely apparent. When the response index is 1.05 the error is 9.5% (0.95% absolute) and again the poor linearity is not obvious in figure 2. As already stated, to obtain accurate results without employing a correction factor, the response index should lie between 0.98 and 1.02. Most LC detectors can be designed to meet this linearity criteria. 

Procedures for determining the spectral responslvlty or correction factors In equation 2 are based on radiance or Irradlance standards, calibrated source-monochromator combinations, and an accepted standard. The easiest measurement procedure for determining corrected emission spectra Is to use a well-characterized standard and obtain an Instrumental response function, as described by equation 3 (17). In this case, quinine sulfate dlhydrate has been extensively studied and Issued as a National Bureau of Standards (NBS) Standard Reference Material (SRM). 

Step 3. Correction factors are responsible for deviations from simple group additivity. In most cases correction factors reflect internal (electronic, steric and H-bonding) interactions between polar functional groups. Figure 14.2 describes them as two-way arrows between any two functional groups, thereby reflecting the bidirectional nature of interactions (interaction between the ith and jth fragments separated by the kth type of skeleton) as expressed in ... 

When the test for related substances is a limit test, the peaks of the impurities in the chromatogram of the test solution can be compared to the peak of the test substance in the chromatogram of a dilution of the test solution at the limiting concentration. The approach is vahd provided that the response factors of the impurities and the test substance are equivalent using the detector conditions described, otherwise correction factors need to be applied. 

Accuracy (systematic error or bias) expresses the closeness of the measured value to the true or actual value. Accuracy is usually expressed as the percentage recovery of added analyte. Acceptable average analyte recovery for determinative procedures is 80-110% for a tolerance of > 100 p-g kg and 60-110% is acceptable for a tolerance of < 100 p-g kg Correction factors are not allowed. Methods utilizing internal standards may have lower analyte absolute recovery values. Internal standard suitability needs to be verified by showing that the extraction efficiencies and response factors of the internal standard are similar to those of the analyte over the entire concentration range. The analyst should be aware that in residue analysis the recovery of the fortified marker residue from the control matrix might not be similar to the recovery from an incurred marker residue. 

The limitations of derivatization are that derivatization reactions only approach completion and never attain it, that the conditions of derivatization sometimes cause degradation, and that even very similar compounds are derivatized to different extents. Use of derivatization, therefore, requires a careful study of recovery of known components. A limitation common to the use of specialized detectors and derivatization is the response factor problem. The detector responds to different compounds to a greater or lesser extent. Measurement of correction factors to account for this is one of the most time-consuming aspects of analysis. 

The formula assumes that the detector sensitivity is the same for each component. If this is not the case, the response of each must first be determined using a set of standards. Areas are then multiplied by correction factors obtained by setting the response of one component equal to unity. 

Estimating the amount of a metabolite when an authentic reference standard is not available is still a challenge. Yu et al.191 described a procedure that uses the results of an in vitro metabolite identification based on a test compound that produces 14C-labelled metabolites essentially the 14C-labelled metabolites are used to provide a correction factor for the MS response when assaying samples that contain the same metabolite in a study that did not use the 14C-labelled test compound. Flop192 described another novel approach for metabolite quantitation based on the observation that the MS responses for most compounds are very similar to responses from nanospray ESI. Valaskovic et al.193 also reported equimolar MS responses for multiple compounds when the flow rate to the nanospray ESI source was set to about 10 nl/min. It is too soon to know whether these intriguing findings can be readily applied to discovery metabolite identification studies. 

The physical properties of a tracer gas must also be considered since control and measuring devices usually respond to mass flow rates or thermal conductivity. Thus, the response to pure C02 or methane would differ substantially from air, although correction factors can often be calculated. 

---