Mass Spectrometry for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues and Their Metabolites 2015
DOI: 10.1002/9781119070771.ch7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Matrix Effects in Liquid Chromatography–Electrospray Ionization–Mass Spectrometry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 162 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2 Statistical evaluation of matrix effects in DW and WWTP effluent after enrichment with the mlSPE method (left) and evaporation method (right). The dashed orange lines mark + 25% and − 25% hypothesis was confirmed by Ekdahl et al [21] and Stahnke et al [22] who observed suppression of the target analyte signals, simultaneously to an increasing TIC. A comparison of the TIC of the mlSPE-enriched WWTP effluent with the TIC of mlSPE-enriched drinking water clearly demonstrated that an increased TIC intensity coincided with more pronounced ion suppression (ESM Fig.…”
Section: Structure-unspecific Matrix Effectssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…2 Statistical evaluation of matrix effects in DW and WWTP effluent after enrichment with the mlSPE method (left) and evaporation method (right). The dashed orange lines mark + 25% and − 25% hypothesis was confirmed by Ekdahl et al [21] and Stahnke et al [22] who observed suppression of the target analyte signals, simultaneously to an increasing TIC. A comparison of the TIC of the mlSPE-enriched WWTP effluent with the TIC of mlSPE-enriched drinking water clearly demonstrated that an increased TIC intensity coincided with more pronounced ion suppression (ESM Fig.…”
Section: Structure-unspecific Matrix Effectssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…In various review articles, different approaches have been discussed to overcome this analytical problem [13,41,102,103]. As reported by Ucles et al [103], several approaches are used to eliminate or reduce matrix effects; they include optimizing sample preparation to remove interfering compounds from the samples [104], changing LC conditions to avoid the coelution of analytes and interfering compounds [105], changing MS conditions to reduce the occurrence of the matrix effect in the ion source [106], dilution of the sample [106] or using chemical treatment measures [107] or calibration techniques such as matrix-matched calibrations [29], and the standard addition method [13].…”
Section: Sample Determinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low (− 20 % < ME < 20 %) or medium (− 50 % < ME < − 20 % or 20 % > ME > 50 %) matrix effects (ME) (Economou, Botitsi, Antoniou, & Tsipi, 2009) were observed for all analytes, demonstrating the great efficiency of d-SPE cleanup on matrix co-extractives removal (Table 4). Signal suppression was prevalent, such phenomenon has been supported by different theories as detailed by Stahnke and Alder (2015). In summary, co-eluted endogenous (matrix components) and exogenous (others introduced during sample preparation) substances can suppress the analytical signal by interfering with the addition of charge to the analyte in the liquid phase and/or transfer of ions from the droplet surface to the gas phase during the ionization process stages (Furey, Moriarty, Bane, Kinsella, & Lehane, 2013;Panuwet et al, 2016).…”
Section: In-house Validationmentioning
confidence: 91%