What is the expected value of analyte recovery when RI is zero in an LLE experiment with a selectivity coefficient of 0.825 and an error of 4.82%?
Answer from top 10 papers
The selectivity coefficient (often denoted as \( k' \)) is a measure of the relative retention of two analytes in chromatography, which can also be applied to describe the relative extraction efficiency of an analyte versus an interferent in liquid-liquid extraction (LLE). The question implies that the selectivity coefficient for the LLE method is 0.825, which suggests that the method is more selective for the analyte than the interferent. The error mentioned, 4.82%, is presumably the error in the quantification of the analyte due to the presence of the interferent.
Given that the relative intensity (RI) is zero, this would indicate that there is no signal from the interferent affecting the analyte signal. In such a case, the error due to the interferent would not contribute to the overall quantification of the analyte. Therefore, the analyte recovery can be considered unaffected by the interferent and should be equivalent to the inherent recovery of the LLE method for the analyte alone.
To determine the value of the analyte recovery, we would typically refer to the recovery rates provided in the context of the LLE method described in the papers. However, none of the provided papers directly correlate the selectivity coefficient with the recovery rate in the presence of an interferent with a relative intensity of zero. Therefore, we can only infer that the recovery rate would be consistent with the inherent recovery rate of the LLE method for the analyte as reported in the papers, assuming no interference from the interferent (Annadi et al., 2019; Freitas-Lima et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2021; Kalivas et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2013; Selvadurai & Meyyanathan, 2010; Skou et al., 2021).
In summary, if the RI is zero, indicating no interference from the interferent, the value of the analyte recovery would be expected to be the same as the recovery rate inherent to the LLE method for the analyte, as reported in the papers. Since the specific recovery rate under these conditions is not provided in the context, we cannot give a numerical value for the analyte recovery. However, it would be reasonable to assume that the recovery rate would be within the range reported for the LLE methods in the papers, which varies across different studies and analytes.
Source Papers