Recovery vs. overall efficiency [Bioanalytics]

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2009-12-30 18:36 (6023 d 14:27 ago) – Posting: # 4540
Views: 6,772

Dear Rajasekhar,

❝ The percent recovery was evaluated by comparing the peak area of extracted

❝ samples and peak area of un-extracted (Aqueous) samples.


OK. Then I would not call this recovery but rather overall efficiency. What you have measured is a combination of the yield of your extraction or protein precipitation method (which is what I would call recovery) and matrix effects.

If you want to evaluate the recovery of your extraction method when using LC/MS methods you should compare the response of extracted samples to the response of blank samples, extracted and then spiked post-extraction. That's an experiment you can combine with matrix effects, where you will compare the response in samples spiked post-extraction to the response in aqueous samples:

- recovery: response in extracted samples / response in samples spiked post extraction
- matrix factor: response in samples spiked post extraction / response in aqueous samples
- overall efficiency: response in extracted samples / response in aqueous samples

The low "recovery" (below 40 %) you had for analyte B with your protein precipitation method is probably due to matrix effects. As mentioned by Helmut protein precipitation is the worst sample preparation method you may think of when using LC/MS methods. Fast, cheap, easy, but terrible.

Regards
Ohlbe

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,572 registered users;
370 visitors (0 registered, 370 guests [including 23 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:03 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left
but between the party of the thoughtful
and the party of the jerks.    Jimmy Wales

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5