Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Health Institute for Biomedicine and Health Sciences, Graz, Austria; Institute of Chemistry - Analytical Chemistry, NAWI Graz, University of Graz, Austria.
Institute of Chemistry - Analytical Chemistry, NAWI Graz, University of Graz, Austria.
Anal Chim Acta. 2016 Apr 7;915:56-63. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2016.02.031. Epub 2016 Feb 23.
Investigations into sample preparation procedures usually focus on analyte recovery with no information provided about the fate of other components of the sample (matrix). For many analyses, however, and particularly those using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), quantitative measurements are greatly influenced by sample matrix. Using the example of the drug amitriptyline and three of its metabolites in serum, we performed a comprehensive investigation of nine commonly used sample clean-up procedures in terms of their suitability for preparing serum samples. We were monitoring the undesired matrix compounds using a combination of charged aerosol detection (CAD), LC-CAD, and a metabolomics-based LC-MS/MS approach. In this way, we compared analyte recovery of protein precipitation-, liquid-liquid-, solid-phase- and hybrid solid-phase extraction methods. Although all methods provided acceptable recoveries, the highest recovery was obtained by protein precipitation with acetonitrile/formic acid (amitriptyline 113%, nortriptyline 92%, 10-hydroxyamitriptyline 89%, and amitriptyline N-oxide 96%). The quantification of matrix removal by LC-CAD showed that the solid phase extraction method (SPE) provided the lowest remaining matrix load (48-123 μg mL(-1)), which is a 10-40 fold better matrix clean-up than the precipitation- or hybrid solid phase extraction methods. The metabolomics profiles of eleven compound classes, comprising 70 matrix compounds showed the trends of compound class removal for each sample preparation strategy. The collective data set of analyte recovery, matrix removal and matrix compound profile was used to assess the effectiveness of each sample preparation method. The best performance in matrix clean-up and practical handling of small sample volumes was showed by the SPE techniques, particularly HLB SPE. CAD proved to be an effective tool for revealing the considerable differences between the sample preparation methods. This detector can be used to follow matrix compound elution during chromatographic separations, and the facile monitoring of matrix signal can assist in avoiding unfavourable matrix effects on analyte quantification.
通常,对样品制备程序的研究主要集中在分析物的回收率上,而没有提供有关样品(基质)中其他成分去向的信息。然而,对于许多分析,特别是使用液相色谱-质谱(LC-MS)的分析,定量测量受样品基质的影响很大。我们以血清中的药物阿米替林及其三种代谢物为例,对九种常用的样品净化程序进行了全面研究,以评估它们在制备血清样品方面的适用性。我们使用带电气溶胶检测(CAD)、LC-CAD 和基于代谢组学的 LC-MS/MS 方法联用,监测不希望出现的基质化合物。通过这种方式,我们比较了蛋白沉淀、液液萃取、固相萃取和混合固相萃取方法的分析物回收率。虽然所有方法都提供了可接受的回收率,但用乙腈/甲酸进行蛋白沉淀(阿米替林 113%、去甲替林 92%、10-羟基阿米替林 89%和阿米替林 N-氧化物 96%)得到的回收率最高。LC-CAD 对基质去除的定量表明,固相萃取法(SPE)提供的基质残留量最低(48-123μg·mL-1),这比沉淀或混合固相萃取方法的基质净化效果好 10-40 倍。11 个化合物类别的代谢组学图谱,包含 70 种基质化合物,显示了每种样品制备策略对化合物类别的去除趋势。将分析物回收率、基质去除和基质化合物图谱的综合数据集用于评估每种样品制备方法的效果。SPE 技术,特别是 HLB SPE,在基质净化和小体积样品的实际处理方面表现出最佳性能。CAD 被证明是一种有效的工具,可揭示样品制备方法之间的显著差异。该检测器可用于跟踪色谱分离过程中的基质化合物洗脱情况,并且基质信号的简便监测有助于避免基质对分析物定量的不利影响。