Res. Solvent Response Suppression with Cholesterol Headspace
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:34 pm
Hey All,
I am seeing a strange occurrence with a headspace method we are trying to validate.
I am experiencing a response suppression of the six residual solvents being determined (methanol, ethanol, acetone, ethyl acetate, THF and dioxane) when the material under test is present (cholesterol, 50mg/mL). The responses are approximately 20% lower than the standard without cholesterol.
Has anyone seen this before when working with large molecules? Is the steroid backbone doing something or is the method at fault? I doubt p-xylene is acting as the suppressant.
Here is the method.
Diluent: p-Xylene
Test solution: 50mg/mL cholesterol
Standard Conc.: 19µg/mL to 250µg/mL
Static Headspace: 22-mL vials, 4 mL total of solutions, heated for 30min @ 120°C
Transfer Line: 125°C
Inlet: 150°C with 2mm liner
Injection Volume: 1 mL (sample loop)
Column: DB-5
Detector: FID
All the responses of the Standard are linear from 10-250% of the nominal concentration. Once spiked into the headspace vial with the test solution, a suppression occurs.
I then tried to convert the method to a standard addition method to account for this issue. Now we are seeing recoveries all over the place (75 to 175%). It seems as though some variance is occurring here too between the test solution and the spiked test solution.
Basically, I have linearity, precision, specificity, but no accuracy. Recoveries by standard (bracketing) calculations gives me 20% lower values than expected with the cholesterol solutions and the standard addition approach gives me variances at the different concentration levels being evaluated.
Any clue as to my problem?
Thanks in advance,
Burt
I am seeing a strange occurrence with a headspace method we are trying to validate.
I am experiencing a response suppression of the six residual solvents being determined (methanol, ethanol, acetone, ethyl acetate, THF and dioxane) when the material under test is present (cholesterol, 50mg/mL). The responses are approximately 20% lower than the standard without cholesterol.
Has anyone seen this before when working with large molecules? Is the steroid backbone doing something or is the method at fault? I doubt p-xylene is acting as the suppressant.
Here is the method.
Diluent: p-Xylene
Test solution: 50mg/mL cholesterol
Standard Conc.: 19µg/mL to 250µg/mL
Static Headspace: 22-mL vials, 4 mL total of solutions, heated for 30min @ 120°C
Transfer Line: 125°C
Inlet: 150°C with 2mm liner
Injection Volume: 1 mL (sample loop)
Column: DB-5
Detector: FID
All the responses of the Standard are linear from 10-250% of the nominal concentration. Once spiked into the headspace vial with the test solution, a suppression occurs.
I then tried to convert the method to a standard addition method to account for this issue. Now we are seeing recoveries all over the place (75 to 175%). It seems as though some variance is occurring here too between the test solution and the spiked test solution.
Basically, I have linearity, precision, specificity, but no accuracy. Recoveries by standard (bracketing) calculations gives me 20% lower values than expected with the cholesterol solutions and the standard addition approach gives me variances at the different concentration levels being evaluated.
Any clue as to my problem?
Thanks in advance,
Burt