Table 2.
Summary of total number of labeled standard analytes which experienced matrix effect (suppression or enhancement) from plasma vs. serum
HILIC | C18 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MeOH | MeOH:ACN | ACN | Hybrid-SPE/ACN | Hybrid-SPE/MeOH | MeOH | MeOH:ACN | ACN | Hybrid-SPE/ACN | Hybrid-SPE/MeOH | |
Plasma | ||||||||||
Suppressed (+ESI) | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Enhanced (+ESI) | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
Total affected (+ESI) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
Total unaffected (+ESI) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Suppressed (− ESI) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Enhanced (− ESI) | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
Total affected (− ESI) | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
Total unaffected (− ESI) | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Serum | ||||||||||
Suppressed (+ESI) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Enhanced (+ESI) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Total affected (+ESI) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 |
Total unaffected (+ESI) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Suppressed (− ESI) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Enhanced (− ESI) | 5 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Total affected (− -ESI) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
Total unaffected (− ESI) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Table shows matrix effect of plasma vs. serum across five extraction methods (MeOH, MeOH:ACN, ACN, Hybrid-SPE/ACN, and Hybrid-SPE/MeOH) within four LC–MS analysis (+ ESI HILIC, − ESI HILIC, + ESI RP C18, and − ESI RP C18). An analyte is considered to have been affected if its matrix effect ratio is above 120% or suppressed if it is below 80%. (According to [6]). MeOH methanol, MeOH:ACN methanol combined with acetonitrile, ACN acetonitrile, SPE solid preparation extraction, ESI electrospray ionisation, RP reverse phase