Matrix effects in ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of vitamin E in plasma: The effect of sample preparation and data processing

Abstract

The approaches to matrix effects determination and reduction in ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography with mass spectrometry detection have been evaluated in this study using different sample preparation methods and investigation of different calibration models. Five sample preparation methods, including protein precipitation, liquid-liquid extraction, supported liquid extraction, and solid phase extraction based on both “bind and elute” and “interferent removal” modes, were optimized with an emphasis on the matrix effects and recovery of 8 forms of vitamin E, including α-, β-, γ-, and δ-tocopherols and tocotrienols, from plasma. The matrix effect evaluation included the use and comparison of external and internal calibration using three models, i.e., least square with no transformation and no weighting (1/x0), with 1/x2 weighting, and with logarithmic transformation. The calibration model with logarithmic transformation provided the lowest %-errors and the best fits. Moreover, the type of the calibration model significantly affected not only the fit of the data but also the matrix effects when evaluating them based on the comparison of calibration curve slopes. Indeed, based on the used calibration model, the matrix effects calculated from calibration slopes ranged from +92% to – 72% for α-tocopherol and from −77% to +19% in the case of δ-tocotrienol. Thus, it was crucial to calculate the matrix effect by Matuszewski's post-extraction approach at six concentration levels. Indeed, a strong concentration dependence was observed for all optimized sample preparation methods, even if the stable isotopically labelled internal standards (SIL-IS) were used for compensation. The significant differences between individual concentration levels and compounds were observed, even when the tested calibration range covered only one order of magnitude. In methods with wider calibration ranges, the inappropriate use of calibration slope comparison instead of the post-extraction addition approach could result in false negative results of matrix effects. In the selected example of vitamin E, solid-phase extraction was the least affected by matrix effects when used in interferent removal mode, but supported liquid extraction resulted in the highest recoveries. We showed that the calibration model, the use of a SIL-IS, and the analyte concentration level played a crucial role in the matrix effects. Moreover, the matrix effects can significantly differ for compounds with similar physicochemical properties and close retention times. Thus, in all bioanalytical applications, where different analytes are typically determined in one analytical run, it is necessary to carefully select the data processing in addition to the method for the sample preparation, SIL-IS, and chromatography.