2013
DOI: 10.1039/c3ay26551j
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of different methods aiming to account for/overcome matrix effects in LC/ESI/MS on the example of pesticide analyses

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some of the common methods that account for overcoming matrix effects in LC–ESI‐MS (matrix‐matched calibration, standard addition, etc.) were compared . The relationship between the matrix effects and physicochemical properties was investigated, and it indicated that the molecular polarity and volume of the analyte increase the matrix effect, while hydrophobicity and an increasing number of nonpolar carbon atoms in the analyte decrease the matrix effects .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of the common methods that account for overcoming matrix effects in LC–ESI‐MS (matrix‐matched calibration, standard addition, etc.) were compared . The relationship between the matrix effects and physicochemical properties was investigated, and it indicated that the molecular polarity and volume of the analyte increase the matrix effect, while hydrophobicity and an increasing number of nonpolar carbon atoms in the analyte decrease the matrix effects .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the experiment performed, the matrix factor value obtained for the QCL was 101.376%, meaning that at this concentration, there was ions enhancement, although not significantly, the value was near 100% [10][11][12][13]. The matrix factor value obtained in the high concentration was 85.053%, meaning that there was ions suppression [14,15].…”
Section: Selectivity Testmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…One reason for the small matrix effect can be the low flow rate in this method, which can reduce matrix effects in ESI [51]. This can be further improved by post-column splitting [58] or using smaller dimensions of the column with proportionally lower flow rate. Moreover, using other ionization sources such as APCI [59] and APPI [60] might also help to reduce the matrix effect as they are less prone to interferences.…”
Section: Methods Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%