1. Introduction
The assessment of assay accuracy is critical in analytical
chemistry, particularly when facing the challenge of variable matrix effects
during quantitative measurements. The phenomenon commonly referred to as the
matrix effect occurs when components of a sample other than the analyte
influence the response of the assay. This effect can lead to significant
discrepancies in the measurement of target analytes, particularly at
intermediate and high dilution levels, where the concentration of the analyte
is considerably lower and increasingly susceptible to interference. Matrix
effects can arise from various sources, including co-eluting substances, ion
suppression or enhancement, and physical properties such as viscosity and pH.
These factors may alter the ionization or detection efficiency of the target
analyte, impacting accuracy and precision (Tan et al., 2014; Rej and
Norton-Wenzel, 2015; Rao, 2018). The challenge becomes more pronounced when
analyzing samples that require significant dilution to bring analyte
concentrations within the linear range of detection, often encountered in
clinical and environmental analyses (Bowman et al., 2023; Gergov et al., 2015).
While numerous studies have aimed to quantify the matrix effect at specific
dilution levels (Tu & Bennett, 2017; Thompson & Ellison, 2005; Cortese
et al., 2019), a comprehensive examination of its impact across a range of
intermediate and high dilution scenarios remains limited. Failing to account
for the matrix effect can result in underestimations of analyte concentrations,
erroneous conclusions in research studies, and potential clinical misdiagnoses
(Bowman et al., 2023; Thompson & Ellison, 2005; Xin Zhang et al., 2016).
Such inaccuracies underscore the need for a robust methodological framework that
enables the clear delineation of matrix influences on assay performance.
Accurate quantification at intermediate and high dilution levels
necessitates the implementation of suitable validation practices to mitigate
potential matrix interferences. Validation of analytical methods is essential
not only for regulatory compliance but also for ensuring that the methods
exhibit proper sensitivity and robustness under varying conditions. The
guidelines provided by organizations such as the International Conference on
Harmonisation (ICH) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set forth
fundamental principles for assessing analytical performance, with an emphasis
on matrix characterization during method validation (ICH, 2021). Optimal
validation practices should incorporate strategies that specifically address
potential matrix effects. Techniques such as matrix-matched calibration,
internal standardization, and comprehensive method development are precious in
this regard (Carter et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2014; Francischini et al., 2024).
Additionally, the incorporation of cross-validation approaches using different
sample matrices can provide critical insights into the variability induced by
matrix differences (Tan et al., 2014; Rej and Norton-Wenzel, 2015; Rao, 2018). A
key aspect of addressing matrix effects involves implementing a thorough matrix
characterization process, which should include assessing the composition and
properties of reference materials. The application of advanced statistical
tools can facilitate the quantification of variability attributable to matrix
components and guide the selection of appropriate validation protocols.
Researchers must realize how matrix composition can influence their assay's
performance to improve the overall rigor of analytical methodologies. Moreover,
the relationship between assay accuracy, precision, and matrix effects does not
merely concern methodological validation. It also extends to the research
laboratory's rigorous adherence to good laboratory practices (GLP). By
fostering an environment rooted in quality assurance and ongoing training,
laboratories can enhance their analytical capabilities, improving the accuracy and reliability of assay results (Tu & Bennett, 2017;
Thompson & Ellison, 2005; Cortese et al., 2019).
Let's focus on best validation practices to address matrix challenges at critical dilution levels by clarifying the relationship between matrix effects, assay accuracy, and precision.
2. Theoretical
Background: Mechanisms and Factors Influencing the Matrix Effect
The matrix effect is a phenomenon that arises from various
interactions between the analyte and the components of the sample matrix. These
interactions can be broadly categorized into three main types: chemical,
physical, and spectral interactions. Each type of interaction can significantly
influence the accuracy and reliability of analytical measurements, particularly
in complex matrices such as biological samples, environmental samples, and food
products.
2.1 Types of
Interactions
Chemical interactions refer to modifications in an analyte's chemical environment that arise due to the presence of various constituents within the matrix. A common form of chemical interaction is ion suppression or enhancement, which occurs when other ions within the matrix compete with the analyte for interaction with the detector. For instance, in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), co-eluting ions may inhibit the signal of the target analyte, resulting in an underrepresentation of its concentration (Matuszewski et al., 2003). Conversely, certain matrix components may serve to enhance the signal, leading to an overestimation of the analyte concentration.
Complex formation is another example of chemical interaction, where analytes form complexes with substances present in the matrix. This phenomenon can alter the reactivity and detection properties of the analyte. For example, metal ions found in a biological matrix may bind to the analyte, thereby influencing its detection efficiency (Harris, 2010). These chemical interactions can complicate the quantification of analytes, emphasizing the need for appropriate calibration methods to address matrix effects.
Physical interactions pertain to the impact of the matrix on the physical characteristics of the analyte, which can also affect its detection. A significant aspect of physical interactions is the influence of viscosity and density. The viscosity and density of the sample matrix can affect the mass transfer of the analyte during extraction, chromatographic separation, and ionization in mass spectrometry. Elevated viscosity may hinder the diffusion of the analyte, leading to variable recovery rates (Shelley et al., 2018). This can result in inconsistencies in the measured concentrations of the analyte. Furthermore, partitioning phenomena in complex matrices can lead to discrepancies in measured concentrations. In solid-phase extraction procedures, for example, analytes may preferentially partition into the sorbent material rather than eluting into the solution (Berrueta et al., 1995). Understanding and addressing these physical interactions is essential for obtaining reliable analytical results.
Spectral interactions occur when components of the matrix absorb or scatter light, or when they introduce spectral interferences that may impact the signal of the analyte. A prevalent type of spectral interaction is spectral overlap, where matrix constituents absorb at wavelengths similar to those of the target analyte. This can result in inaccurately high signals or baseline noise, complicating quantification. Spectral overlap is particularly relevant in ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) spectrophotometry (Østergaard, 2016; Bastos, 2022). Another instance of spectral interactions is fluorescence quenching, whereby certain matrix components can either diminish or enhance fluorescence emissions. This variability in fluorescence-based assays underscores the importance of employing matrix-matched calibration to ensure accurate measurements (Lakowicz, 2006). Spectral interactions can significantly affect the accuracy of analytical measurements and necessitate careful consideration throughout method development and validation.
2.2 Main
Factors Influencing the Matrix Effect
The matrix effect can be influenced by several factors, including
sample composition, assay design, and analytical conditions. The complexity of
biological samples, such as plasma, serum, or tissue extracts, plays a critical
role in influencing the matrix effect. Variations in protein content, lipid
levels, and dissolved salts can lead to different degrees of matrix effects
depending on the analyte being measured (Matuszewski et al., 2003). For
instance, high protein content in plasma samples can lead to protein binding of
the analyte, affecting its availability for detection. Similarly, lipid-rich
samples may cause ion suppression in mass spectrometry due to the co-elution of
lipids with the analyte. Therefore, rigorous characterization of the sample
matrix is essential for predicting and mitigating the matrix effect.
Biological variability is another important aspect of sample
composition that impacts the matrix effect. The inherent biological variability
between individuals, such as differences in age, sex, diet, or health status,
can lead to variations in the matrix composition. These inter-individual
differences in metabolites and proteins can result in inconsistent assay
results, emphasizing the need for thorough analytical validation. For example,
the metabolic profile of a patient with a specific disease may differ
significantly from that of a healthy individual, leading to different matrix
effects and potentially affecting the accuracy of the assay.
The choice of assay design and methodology is pivotal in managing
the matrix effect. Complex procedures, such as liquid-liquid extractions or
solid-phase extractions, may introduce more pronounced matrix effects compared
to simpler, more selective methods (Peters & Remane, 2012; Cortese et al.,
2019). For instance, liquid-liquid extraction can lead to the co-extraction of
matrix components that interfere with the analyte’s detection. On the other
hand, solid-phase extraction can selectively isolate the analyte, reducing the
impact of matrix components. However, the choice of extraction method must be
carefully optimized to balance the efficiency of analyte recovery with the
minimization of matrix effects.
Calibration strategies are also crucial in mitigating the matrix
effect. The implementation of matrix-matched calibration, where calibration
standards are prepared in a matrix that closely resembles the sample matrix,
can significantly enhance the accuracy and reliability of the measurements.
This approach ensures that the calibration curve accounts for the variation
introduced by the matrix, providing more accurate quantification of the analyte
(Cortese et al., 2019; Bappaditya et al., 2022). The use of
internal standards, which are compounds added to the sample that undergo the
same interactions as the analyte, can help correct for matrix effects and
improve the precision of the assay.
Variations in analytical conditions, such as ionization techniques
and detection methods, can also influence the matrix effect. Different
ionization techniques in mass spectrometry, such as electrospray ionization
(ESI) and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI), exhibit varying
degrees of susceptibility to matrix effects. For example, ESI is more prone to
ion suppression due to the presence of co-eluting matrix components, whereas
APCI may be less affected by such interferences. Therefore, the choice of
ionization technique should be based on the specific characteristics of the
sample matrix and the analyte.
The sensitivity and specificity of the analytical method are
critical factors that influence its resilience to matrix effects. Methods with
higher specificity, such as targeted LC-MS/MS, can allow for more accurate
quantification even in the presence of complex matrices by avoiding
interference from non-target components (Sveshnikova et al., 2019; Tang et al.,
2022). For instance, the use of multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) in LC-MS/MS
enables the selective detection of the analyte based on its unique fragmentation
pattern, reducing the impact of matrix interferences.
3. Mitigating
the Matrix Effect
Mitigating the matrix effect is essential for enhancing the
accuracy and reliability of analytical assays, particularly at intermediate and
high dilution levels. The matrix effect, which arises from interactions between
the analyte and other components in the sample matrix, can significantly impact
the quantification of target analytes. Effective strategies to mitigate these
effects include optimizing sample preparation, using internal standards, and
conducting robust method validation.
3.1 Sample
Preparation Optimization
Optimizing sample preparation is a fundamental strategy for
reducing the matrix effect. The goal is to minimize the presence of interfering
substances that can affect the detection and quantification of the analyte.
Various techniques can be employed depending on the specific matrix composition
and the target analyte.
One common approach is dilution, which reduces the concentration
of matrix components that may interfere with the analyte. However, dilution
must be carefully balanced to ensure that the analyte concentration remains
within the detectable range of the analytical method. Solid-phase extraction
(SPE) is another widely used technique that can selectively isolate the analyte
from the matrix. SPE involves passing the sample through a sorbent material
that retains the analyte while allowing other matrix components to be washed
away. This method can be optimized by selecting appropriate sorbent materials
and conditions to maximize analyte recovery and minimize matrix effects.
Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) is also effective for separating
the analyte from the matrix. LLE involves partitioning the analyte between two
immiscible liquid phases, typically an aqueous phase and an organic solvent.
The choice of solvents and extraction conditions can be tailored to enhance the
selectivity and efficiency of the extraction process. By systematically
optimizing these sample preparation techniques, it is possible to significantly
reduce the matrix effect and improve the accuracy of analytical measurements.
3.2 Use of
Internal Standards
The use of internal standards is a powerful strategy for
compensating for matrix effects during the quantification process. Internal
standards are compounds that are chemically similar to the analyte and are
added to the sample in known quantities. Stable isotope-labeled internal
standards are particularly effective because they have nearly identical
chemical properties to the analyte but can be distinguished based on their
mass.
The internal standard undergoes the same sample preparation,
extraction, and analysis procedures as the analyte, thereby accounting for
variability due to matrix components. By comparing the response of the analyte
to that of the internal standard, it is possible to correct for matrix effects
and obtain more accurate measurements. This approach is widely used in
quantitative bioanalytical methods, including liquid chromatography-mass
spectrometry (LC-MS) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (Tan et
al., 2012; Li et al., 2015).
3.3 Robust
Method Validation
Conducting robust method validation is essential to determine the
impact of the matrix effect on assay performance across various sample types
and conditions. Method validation involves a series of experiments designed to
assess the reliability and accuracy of the analytical method. Key parameters to
evaluate include linearity, sensitivity, precision, and accuracy. Linearity
refers to the method’s ability to produce results that are directly
proportional to the concentration of the analyte within a specified range.
Assessing linearity under different matrix conditions helps ensure the
method can accurately quantify the analyte across a range of concentrations.
Sensitivity, or the method’s ability to detect low concentrations of the
analyte, is also critical, particularly in complex matrices where matrix
effects may reduce the signal. Precision, which measures the method's reproducibility, should be evaluated by analyzing multiple replicates of the same
sample under identical conditions. This helps to identify any variability
introduced by the matrix. Accuracy, or the method’s ability to produce results
that are close to the true value, should be assessed by comparing the measured
concentrations to known reference standards. Validation should also include
experiments to assess the robustness of the method, which is its ability to
remain unaffected by small, deliberate variations in method parameters. This
can help identify any conditions under which the matrix effect may become more
pronounced and allow for adjustments to mitigate these effects.
4. Discussion
As dilution levels increase, the response variability in assays
tends to increase due to several factors. Let's delve into the intricate
interplay between matrix effects and response variability, particularly in the
context of increasingly diluted test samples. The focus is on elucidating
several key factors influencing test accuracy.
Response
Variability and Precision at Increased Dilution Levels
Response variability often amplifies with increasing sample
dilutions, leading to a marked decrease in analytical precision. One primary
reason is the reduction in the concentration of the analyte relative to the
matrix components. At higher dilution levels, the analyte concentration approaches
the limits of detection and becomes comparable to or even lower than the
concentration of interfering substances in the matrix. This can lead to greater
variability in the signal generated by the analyte, as the influence of the
matrix components becomes more pronounced. This phenomenon exacerbates the
impact of random noise. As dilutions increase, the signal not only diminishes
but also becomes increasingly vulnerable to variations arising from laboratory
conditions, instrument sensitivity, and intrinsic matrix effects of the sample.
This response variability is well-documented in the literature, where a
correlation has been established between dilution factors and the standard
deviation of measured responses (Ceriotti,& Panteghini, 2023).
Increased
Variability, Matrix Effects, and Accuracy Errors
The combination of increased response variability and matrix effects can lead to significant inaccuracies in results. Matrix effects refer to the changes in analyte response caused by other substances present in a sample. While these effects can introduce bias, the resulting inaccuracies become even more pronounced when variability is also present. The interaction between these two factors can result in substantial deviations from expected values, posing a persistent challenge in quantitative analysis (Sweeney et al., 2021). It is important to recognize that high variability, when combined with strong matrix effects, complicates the interpretation of results. This highlights the need for method validation studies to consider matrix interferences.
Matrix Effects
and Precision
Interestingly, matrix effects are not directly proportional to
precision. While they can skew response measurements, their influence tends to
operate independently of the precision metrics of a method, which is usually
represented by repeatability or reproducibility in specified conditions. The
inherent noise levels and method performance characteristics play a crucial
role in precision determination. Therefore, a method may maintain acceptable
precision despite profound matrix interferences if calibration and
standardization are effectively instituted. This distinction highlights the
importance of rigorous methodological checks to ascertain the reliability of
precision metrics irrespective of matrix complications.
Confidence
Intervals for Accuracy
Implementing confidence intervals serves as a pivotal strategy for
enhancing accuracy assessments and curbing false positives. By calculating
these intervals, researchers can delineate a range within which the
"true" value is likely to exist, which is crucial in situations where
accuracy is prone to compromise due to variability or matrix effects.
Statistical methods such as bootstrapping or Bayesian approaches can facilitate
the estimation of confidence intervals, providing a more robust framework for
interpreting results. These intervals are not only instrumental for data
interpretation but serve as a foundation for informed decision-making regarding
the validity of test results in clinical and research applications.
Using
Intermediate or High Dilutions
While employing intermediate or high dilutions may introduce
challenges regarding accuracy, it may sometimes be deemed acceptable if
precision remains within acceptable bounds. The utilization of such dilutions
might be necessitated by analytical conditions where sample concentration
exceeds the calibration range, thus requiring dilution for accurate
quantification. In these circumstances, scientists must weigh the trade-offs
between maintaining precision and the risk of compromised accuracy, relying on
stringent validation processes to support their method choices. This balancing
act is especially pertinent in fields such as pharmacokinetics, where dosing
regimens and therapeutic monitoring often compel the use of higher dilutions.
Potential
Consequences of Accuracy Errors
Errors in accuracy can yield repercussions that may far exceed the
perceived benefits of employing high dilutions. Consider, for instance, the
implications of false negatives or false positives in clinical diagnostics or
therapeutic drug monitoring; such inaccuracies can misdirect patient management
strategies, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes. Consequently, the
need for meticulous assessment of accuracy in conjunction with dilution
strategies cannot be overstated.
References
Tan S. K., Shaw P. N., Hewavitharana A. K. (2014). Strategies for
the Detection and Elimination of Matrix Effects in Quantitative LC–MS Analysis.
LCGC North America, 32(1): 54-64.
Rej R., Norton-Wenzel C. S. (2015). Assessing Analytical Accuracy
through Proficiency Testing: Have Effects of Matrix Been Overstated? Clinical
Chemistry, Volume 61(2): 433–434, https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2014.231241
Rao T. N. (2018). Validation of Analytical Methods, Calibration
and Validation of Analytical Methods - A Sampling of Current Approaches.
InTech, Apr. 25, 2018. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.72087.
Bowman, B. A., Reese, C. M., Blount, B. C., & Bhandari, D.
(2023). Mitigating Matrix Effects in LC–ESI–MS-MS Analysis of a Urinary
Biomarker of Xylenes Exposure. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 47(2),
129-135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkac046
Gergov, M., Nenonen, T., Ojanperä, I., & Ketola, R. A. (2015).
Compensation of Matrix Effects in a Standard Addition Method for Metformin in
Postmortem Blood Using Liquid Chromatography–Electrospray–Tandem Mass
Spectrometry. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 39(5), 359-364.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkv020
Jing Tu & Bennett P. (2017) Parallelism Experiments to
Evaluate Matrix Effects, Selectivity and Sensitivity in Ligand-Binding Assay
Method Development: Pros and Cons. Bioanalysis, 9:14, 1107-1122, DOI:
10.4155/bio-2017-0084
Thompson M.& Ellison S. L. R. (2005). A review of interference
effects and their correction in chemical analysis with special reference to
uncertainty. Accred Qual Assur 10, 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-004-0871-5
Cortese M., Gigliobianco M. R., Magnoni F., Censi R.,
& Di Martino P. (2019). Compensate for or Minimize Matrix Effects? Strategies for
Overcoming Matrix Effects in Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Technique:
A Tutorial Review. Molecules, 25(13), 3047. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25133047
Xin Zhang, Haynes Kim, Danaceau J., Andrade L., Demers K., &
Chambers E. (2016). Matrix Effects and Matrix Affects: The Impact of Different
Sample Matrices on Sample Preparation and Chromatographic Analysis.
Chromatography Today, https://www.chromatographytoday.com/article/bioanalytical/40/waters-corporation/matrix-effects-and-matrix-affects-the-impact-of-different-sample-matrices-on-sample-preparation-and-chromatographic-analysis/2126
ICH (2021). ICH Q2(R2) Validation of analytical procedures: Text
and methodology. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical
Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.
Carter J. A., Barros A. I., Nóbrega J. A., & Donati
G. L. (2018). Traditional Calibration Methods in Atomic Spectrometry and New
Calibration Strategies for Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. Frontiers
in Chemistry, 6, 415690. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00504
Francischini D.d.S. & Arruda M.A.Z. One-point calibration and
matrix-matching concept for quantification of potentially toxic elements in
wood by LA-ICP-MS. Anal Bioanal Chem 416, 2737–2748 (2024).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-023-04999-8
Matuszewski, B. K., Constanzer, M. L., & Chavez-Eng, C. M.
(2003). Strategies for the assessment of matrix effect in quantitative
bioanalytical methods based on HPLC-MS/MS. Anal Chem, 75(13), 3019-3030.
doi: 10.1021/ac020361s. PMID: 12964746.
Harris, D. C. (2020). Quantitative chemical analysis (9th ed.).
W.H. Freeman and Company.
Shelley J.T., Badal S.P., Engelhard, C. et al. (2018). Ambient
desorption/ionization mass spectrometry: evolution from rapid qualitative
screening to accurate quantification tool. Anal Bioanal Chem 410,
4061–4076.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1023-9
Berrueta L.A., Gallo B. & Vicente F.
(1995). A review of solid phase extraction: Basic principles and new
developments. Chromatographia 40, 474–483.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02269916
Østergaard, J. (2016). UV/Vis Spectrophotometry and UV Imaging.
In: Müllertz, A., Perrie, Y., Rades, T. (eds) Analytical Techniques in the
Pharmaceutical Sciences. Advances in Delivery Science and Technology. Springer,
New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-4029-5_1
Bastos, E.L. (2022). UV-Vis Absorption and Fluorescence in
Bioanalysis. In: Kubota, L.T., da Silva, J.A.F., Sena, M.M., Alves, W.A. (eds)
Tools and Trends in Bioanalytical Chemistry. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82381-8_4
Lakowicz, J. R. (2006). Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy.
Springer.
Matuszewski BK, Constanzer ML, Chavez-Eng CM, (2203). Strategies
for the assessment of matrix effect in quantitative bioanalytical methods based
on HPLC-MS/MS. Anal Chem. 2003 Jul 1;75(13):3019-30. doi:
10.1021/ac020361s. PMID: 12964746.
Peters, F.T., Remane,
D. Aspects of matrix effects in applications of liquid chromatography–mass
spectrometry to forensic and clinical toxicology—a review. Anal Bioanal Chem
403, 2155–2172 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-012-6035-2
Bappaditya Kanrar, Ghosh, P., Khan, P. et al., (2022). Alternative Strategies for the Calibration and
Elimination of Matrix Effects in LC-MS/MS Multiresidue Analysis of Tea Matrix. J
Anal Chem 77, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1061934822020034
Sveshnikova, N., Yuan, T., Warren, J.M. et al., (2019).
Development and validation of a reliable LC–MS/MS method for quantitative
analysis of usnic acid in Cladonia uncialis. BMC Res Notes 12, 550.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4580-x
Tang, L., Swezey, R.R., Green, C.E. et al. ,(2022). Enhancement of
sensitivity and quantification quality in the LC–MS/MS measurement of large
biomolecules with sum of MRM (SMRM). Anal Bioanal Chem 414, 1933–1947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03829-z
Tan, A., Boudreau, N., Lévesque, A. (2012). Internal Standards for
Quantitative LC-MS Bioanalysis. In: Xu, Q., Madden, T. (eds) LC-MS in Drug
Bioanalysis. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3828-1_1
Li P., Li Z., Beck, W.D. et al., (2015). Bio-generation
of stable isotope-labeled internal standards for absolute and relative
quantitation of phase II drug metabolites in plasma samples using LC–MS/MS. Anal
Bioanal Chem 407, 4053–4063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-015-8614-5
Ceriotti, F., Panteghini, M. (2023). The Quality of Laboratory
Results: Sources of Variability, Methods of Evaluation, and Estimation of Their
Clinical Impact. In: Ciaccio, M. (eds) Clinical and Laboratory Medicine
Textbook. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24958-7_7
