Table 4.
Absolute matrix effect (ME%) and relative Matrix effect, obtained on water and on five different oral fluid pools, according to the protocol proposed by Matuszewski (2006).
| Compound | ME (%)a | SLOPE CV%b | SLOPE DIFFERENCE%c | ASSAY CV RANGE%d | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO IS | With IS | NO IS | With IS | NO IS | With IS | NO IS | With IS | |
| MEPH | 63.8 | 57.3 | 19.4 | 20.3 | 58.6 | 58.6 | 0.40–12.2 | 1.06–11.9 |
| JWH200 | 121.0 | 109.0 | 13.5 | 21.6 | 38.9 | 69.0 | 0.77–15.7 | 0.72–11.2 |
| AM2201 | 123.0 | 111.0 | 13.1 | 14.2 | 38.7 | 48.0 | 0.38–13.1 | 0.72–8.30 |
| JWH250 | 122.0 | 109.0 | 11.4 | 14.1 | 34.6 | 44.3 | 0.35–14.2 | 0.33–8.56 |
| CP47497-C7 | 138.0 | 124.0 | 20.5 | 10.2 | 55.6 | 30.5 | 1.81–21.2 | 0.42–19.1 |
| CP47497-C8 | 130.0 | 117.0 | 18.8 | 8.7 | 56.5 | 26.4 | 2.15–53.1 | 2.36–53.3 |
| CBD | 114.0 | 102.0 | 20.6 | 12.8 | 57.7 | 42.7 | 0.12–15.3 | 2.54–16.6 |
| THCCOOH | 120.0 | 108.0 | 17.3 | 24.6 | 47.3 | 77.2 | 0.97–20.0 | 1.50-21.1 |
| JWH081 | 115.0 | 103.0 | 18.1 | 9.8 | 53.0 | 30.3 | 0.38–8.30 | 1.59–12.7 |
| JWH122 | 116.0 | 104.0 | 13.7 | 6.9 | 40.6 | 19.0 | 0.48–10.3 | 1.03–10.9 |
| JWH019 | 113.0 | 101.0 | 15.0 | 8.4 | 38.5 | 25.6 | 0.57–11.6 | 0.53–15.8 |
| UR144 | 115.0 | 103.0 | 15.3 | 9.4 | 42.1 | 27.8 | 0.41–13.3 | 0.70–16.1 |
| CBN | 123.0 | 111.0 | 18.5 | 4.3 | 59.2 | 11.1 | 0.77–19.7 | 1.17–26.4 |
| HU221 | 129.0 | 117.0 | 14.9 | 10.7 | 37.9 | 34.9 | 1.13–12.4 | 2.04–18.7 |
| THC | 118.0 | 106.0 | 16.6 | 9.9 | 45.4 | 30.5 | 0.82–14.1 | 0.47–15.4 |
ME%, absolute matrix effect,
Precision value (coefficient of variation, CV%) of slopes of standard lines constructed in five different oral fluid pools;
maximum difference between the highest and the lowest slope values divided by the lowest slope value and multiplied by 100;
range of coefficient of variation values (method precision) determined on at all concentrations used for constructing standard lines; No IS, results obtained with calibration curves constructed by linear regression analysis of the analyte area vs. the concentration of analytes injected; With IS, results obtained with calibration curves constructed by linear regression analysis of the ratio of the analyte area to the IS area vs. the concentration of analytes injected.