Sample preparation solubility limitation

Principles and Characteristics Supercritical fluid extraction uses the principles of traditional LSE. Recently SFE has become a much studied means of analytical sample preparation, particularly for the removal of analytes of interest from solid matrices prior to chromatography. SFE has also been evaluated for its potential for extraction of in-polymer additives. In SFE three interrelated factors, solubility, diffusion and matrix, influence recovery. For successful extraction, the solute must be sufficiently soluble in the SCF. The timescale for diffusion/transport depends on the shape and dimensions of the matrix particles. Mass transfer from the polymer surface to the SCF extractant is very fast because of the high diffusivity in SCFs and the layer of stagnant SCF around the solid particles is very thin. Therefore, the rate-limiting step in SFE is either... 

MS has recently been used to measure compounds with significant levels of impurities and solubilities below the quantitation limits of other methods. Guo et al.46 described the use of LC/MS for solubility measurements in buffer solutions in a 96-well plate. Fligge et al.47 discussed an automated high-throughput method for classification of compound solubility. They integrated a Tecan robotic system for sample preparation in 384-well plates and fast LC/MS for concentration measurement. This approach is limited by LC/MS throughput. 

To purify a freshly prepared sample, the preparative chemist will crystallize then recrystallize the compound until convinced it is pure. To recrystallize, we first dissolve the compound in hot solvent. The solubility s of the compound depends on the temperature T. The value of s is high at high temperature, but it decreases at lower temperatures until the solubility limit is first reached and then surpassed, and solute precipitates from solution (hopefully) to yield crystals. 

For standard MALDI sample preparation, the analyte should be soluble to about 0.1 mg ml in some solvent. If an analyte is completely insoluble, solvent-free sample preparation may alternatively be applied (Chap. 10.4.3). The analyte may be neutral or ionic. Solutions containing metal salts, e.g., from buffers or excess of non-complexated metals, may cause a confusingly large number of signals due to multiple proton/metal exchange and adduct ion formation even complete suppression of the analyte can occur. The mass range of MALDI is theoretically almost unlimited in practice, limits can be as low as 3000 u, e.g., with polyethylene, or as high as 300,000 u in case of antibodies. 

Different Approaches for Linearity Determination. The first approach is to weigh different amounts of authentic sample directly to prepare linearity solutions of different concentrations. Since solutions of different concentration are prepared separately from different weights, if the related substances reach their solubility limit, they will not be completely dissolved and will be shown as a nonlinear response in the plot. However, this is not suitable to prepare solutions of very low concentration, as the weighing error will be relatively high at such a low concentration. In general, this approach will be affected significantly by weighing error in the preparation. 

The limited solubility of membrane proteins and related polypeptides in aqueous mobile phases can also cause problems. These could be solved, e.g., by adding guanidine hydrochloride (6 M) or urea (8 M) to the portion of initial eluent used for sample preparation 69). The urea was always eluted in the breakthrough volume of the column. Thus, the retained hydrophobic polypeptides might have been temporarily precipitated upon the column. Collagen chains, dissolved in 0.5 M acetic acid, were successfully separated by RP-HPLC through gradients of 0.1 M TFA/acetonitrile 70> or (0.05 M ammonium bicarbonate + TFA)/ tetrahydrofuran 57>. 

Sample Preparation for Solid Polyethylene Glycols Carefully introduce 25.0 mL of the Phthalic Anhydride Solution into a clean, dry, heat-resistant pressure bottle. Add an accurately weighed amount of the sample, previously melted, equivalent to its expected molecular weight divided by 160 to the bottle because of limited solubility, however, do not use more than 25 g of any sample. Add 25 mL of pyridine, freshly distilled over phthalic anhydride, swirl to effect solution, stopper the bottle, and wrap it securely in a fabric bag. 

The results from these two experiments (kinetic and thermodynamic) will show whether the regular extraction procedure is complete or not. Most hkely, for modified-release drug products, time is essential (higher recovery over time, but watch out for solution stabihty ). The change in volume will have an impact if the solubihty of an API is on the border of the solubility limit in that particular sample preparation solvent (in the presence of excipients). If the latter is the case, then the procedure should be modified to extract with higher volume of sample preparation solvent and/or change the pH or composition of the solvent. 

The amount of experimental data for MP is large, and it is not a major limiting factor for modeling, as is the case with aqueous solubility or vapor pressure. Indeed, when submitting a new article for publication, the major publishers require the authors to provide spectral and MP data of molecules synthesized. However, the quality of MP data may significantly vary depending on sample preparation and its purity. Moreover the same substance can be in a crystal or amorphic state that can dramatically change its MP and solubility. 

The limiting sources of uncertainty in LC/MS/MS methods are sample preparation and sample ionization. Under typical conditions, the random uncertainty associated with sample preparation is 5 to 15% relative standard deviation. This can increase to 25% or more when variables such as pH, solubility, or protein binding of the analyte within the matrix are not well controlled. If sample pH adjustment, for example, is poorly chosen during sample extraction, then the ionization state of the analyte molecules can be mixed. Small sample to sample differences in pH will then result in variable recovery, leading to high overall assay variability. 

C-Methylation Procedure. The experimental details for the C-methylation of O-methyl coal have been published elsewhere (2) and are essentially those employed here with the following modifications. First, the O-methyl PSOC 1197 coal was obtained from unlabeled dimethyl sulfate using the conditions outlined earlier for the pH 12 O-methylation. Second, the O-methyl coal was not extracted with THF prior to C-methylation because only a small fraction (ca. 1%) of the sample is soluble in hot THF. Third, benzene, not diethyl ether, was used as the organic extraction solvent for all samples prepared with 9-phenylfluorenyl-lithium as base because 9-phenylfluorene and its byproducts have limited diethyl ether solubility. 

Preparative-scale separations are optimized on an analytical scale initially to minimize sample waste, and then scaled-up to a large volume column. A series of screening experiments are employed to identify the most selective solvent system for the separation in which the sample has favorable solubility [6,237,245,247]. The solubility criterion is important for preparative-scale separations, since the sample throughput is limited by the phase in which the sample is least soluble. In addition, the solvent system should provide a suitable range of partition coefficients for the target compounds, and... 

---