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
