Solid Phase Extraction for LC-MS Sample Preparation: A Complete Guide to Fundamentals, Methods, and Troubleshooting

Abstract

This comprehensive guide explores the critical role of solid-phase extraction (SPE) in preparing complex samples for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis. Tailored for researchers and drug development professionals, it covers foundational SPE principles and sorbent selection, details advanced methodological applications from environmental PFAS to pharmaceutical bioanalysis, provides practical troubleshooting for common issues like low recovery, and outlines rigorous validation protocols. By synthesizing the latest 2025 research and product developments, this article serves as an essential resource for developing robust, sensitive, and reliable SPE methods that ensure accurate LC-MS quantification by effectively removing matrix interferences and concentrating target analytes.

SPE Fundamentals: Principles, Sorbents, and Why It's Essential for LC-MS Success

Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) have become the reference techniques for quantifying small molecules in complex matrices such as biological, environmental, and pharmaceutical samples due to their high sensitivity and selectivity [1] [2] [3]. However, the accuracy and reliability of these analyses are profoundly influenced by the sample preparation steps that precede instrumental analysis. Effective sample preparation is critical for isolating target analytes from interfering matrix components, thereby mitigating matrix effects and enhancing overall method sensitivity and robustness [2] [3]. Within this domain, Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) has emerged as a powerful and versatile sample preparation technique, capable of delivering cleaner extracts, concentrating analytes, and significantly improving data quality [4]. These application notes detail the fundamental challenges of LC-MS analysis, provide a comparative evaluation of sample preparation techniques, and offer optimized SPE protocols designed to support researchers and drug development professionals in achieving superior analytical outcomes.

The Problem: Matrix Effects and Their Impact on LC-MS Analysis

Matrix effects represent a major challenge in LC-MS/MS bioanalysis, defined as the alteration of ionization efficiency for a target analyte due to the co-elution of exogenous or endogenous compounds from the sample matrix [2]. In biological matrices, phospholipids are a primary cause of ion suppression, particularly when using electrospray ionization (ESI), which is highly susceptible to such interference [2] [3]. These effects can lead to inaccurate quantification, reduced method sensitivity, and poor reproducibility.

Beyond compromising data accuracy, matrix components can precipitate within the LC system, clogging the chromatography column and increasing system pressure [3]. Furthermore, each injection of a poorly prepared sample deposits residual matrix material on the mass spectrometer hardware. Over time, these deposits degrade ion handling, leading to a gradual loss of sensitivity and necessitating unscheduled instrument downtime for cleaning and maintenance, which can take up to 24 hours [3]. Consequently, investing in robust sample preparation is essential not only for data quality but also for ensuring operational robustness and maximizing instrument uptime.

Several sample preparation techniques are available, each offering different balances of simplicity, cost, and effectiveness in matrix depletion and analyte concentration. The table below summarizes the key characteristics of these common methods.

Table 1: Comparison of Common LC-MS Sample Preparation Techniques

Technique	Analyte Concentration?	Relative Cost	Relative Complexity	Matrix Depletion
Dilution	No	Low	Simple	Less [3]
Protein Precipitation (PPT)	No	Low	Simple	Least [3]
Phospholipid Removal (PLR)	No	High	Relatively Simple	More (specific to phospholipids) [3]
Liquid-Liquid Extraction (LLE)	Yes	Low	Complex	More [3]
Supported Liquid Extraction (SLE)	Yes	High	Moderately Complex	More [3]
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE)	Yes	High	Complex	Most [4]

Technique Selection Guide

The workflow for selecting an appropriate sample preparation method based on analytical requirements and sample matrix can be summarized as follows:

Solid Phase Extraction (SPE): Principles and Sorbent Selection

SPE works by passing a liquid sample through a solid sorbent material that retains the analytes of interest. After retained interferences are washed away, the analytes are eluted with a stronger solvent [4]. This process can follow a load-wash-elute sequence for retaining target analytes or a pass-through approach where interferences are captured and the analytes pass through [4].

The selectivity of SPE is largely determined by the sorbent chemistry. The choice of sorbent depends on the physicochemical properties of the analyte and the sample matrix.

Table 2: Guide to Common SPE Sorbent Chemistries

Sorbent Type	Mechanism	Typical Applications
Oasis HLB	Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balanced; retains a wide range of acids, bases, and neutrals without pH adjustment [4].	Broad-spectrum drug extraction, multi-analyte methods.
C18 (Reversed-Phase)	Hydrophobic interactions; retains non-polar to moderately polar compounds.	Pesticides, pharmaceuticals, environmental contaminants [1] [4].
Mixed-Mode Cation Exchange (MCX)	Combines reversed-phase and strong cation exchange for selective retention of basic compounds.	Basic drugs, tryptic peptides [2] [4].
Mixed-Mode Anion Exchange (MAX)	Combines reversed-phase and strong anion exchange for selective retention of acidic compounds.	PFAS, acidic drugs, nucleic acids [4].
Porous Graphite Carbon	Flat sheets of carbon atoms; no silanol groups; useful at extreme pH.	Reversed-phase and HILIC applications for polar compounds [1].

Comparative Performance Data

The selection of an appropriate sample preparation method has a measurable impact on key performance metrics. The following table summarizes quantitative data from comparative studies, highlighting the effectiveness of different protocols.

Table 3: Quantitative Comparison of Sample Preparation Method Performance

Application Context	Method Compared	Key Performance Metric	Result	Citation
Oxylipins in Plasma	LLE (Ethyl Acetate)	Overall Sufficiency	Insufficient performance [5]
	SPE (Oasis/StrataX)	Matrix Removal	Insufficient removal of interfering matrix [5]
	SPE (BondElut Anion)	Analyte Extraction Efficacy	Low [5]
	SPE (C18 with water/n-hexane wash)	Overall Performance	Best for broad-spectrum analysis [5]
Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides, UV Filters in Water	SPE (C18)	General Applicability	Optimized via Response Surface Methodology [6]
Benzodiazepines/Opioids in Urine	SPE (ExtraBond SCX)	Analyte Recovery Range	9% to 107% [7]
	DLLME	Analyte Recovery Range	14% to 86% [7]
	DLLME vs SPE	Green Analytical Chemistry	DLLME required lower solvent volumes, less time, and less energy [7]

Detailed SPE Protocols

Generic Protocol for SPE Using a Load-Wash-Elute Sequence

This protocol is adaptable for a wide range of analytes using sorbents like Oasis HLB or C18 [4] [8].

• Conditioning: Pass 1-2 column volumes of an organic solvent like methanol or acetonitrile through the sorbent bed, followed by 1-2 column volumes of water or a buffer compatible with your sample. Do not allow the sorbent to dry out.
• Loading: Apply the prepared sample to the cartridge at a controlled, slow flow rate (e.g., 1-2 mL/min) to ensure optimal analyte retention.
• Washing: Pass 1-2 column volumes of a wash solution through the cartridge to remove weakly retained interferences. A common wash is 5-95% organic solvent in water or a mild buffer. For enhanced cleanliness, a wash with n-hexane can be incorporated to remove lipophilic matrix [5].
• Elution: Elute the retained analytes with 1-2 column volumes of a strong organic solvent (e.g., 100% methanol, acetonitrile, or methyl formate [5]). Collect the eluate in a clean tube.
• Reconstitution: If necessary, evaporate the eluate to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen or in a vacuum concentrator. Reconstitute the dry residue in an initial LC mobile phase compatible solvent (e.g., 50:50 methanol:water) [1] [3], vortex, and inject into the LC-MS/MS system.

Specialized Protocol for Basic Analytes Using Mixed-Mode Cation Exchange (MCX)

This protocol is ideal for selective extraction of basic drugs and peptides [4].

• Conditioning: Condition the MCX cartridge with methanol followed by water or a low-ionic-strength acidified buffer (e.g., 0.1% formic acid).
• Loading: Load the sample, which should be acidified (pH ~2-3 below the analyte pKa) to ensure the basic analytes are positively charged.
• Washing: Perform two wash steps:
  • Wash 1: Use water or a mild acid solution to remove neutral and acidic interferences.
  • Wash 2: Use methanol or an organic solvent to remove uncharged, lipophilic interferences.
• Elution: Elute the basic analytes using an organic solvent (e.g., methanol) basified with 2-5% ammonium hydroxide. This neutralizes the analyte's charge, breaking the ionic interaction with the sorbent.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Key Materials and Reagents for SPE-based LC-MS Sample Preparation

Item	Function	Example Applications
Oasis HLB Sorbent	A hydrophilic-lipophilic balanced polymer sorbent for broad-spectrum retention of acidic, basic, and neutral compounds [4].	Multi-analyte screening in biofluids, environmental water analysis.
Mixed-Mode Ion Exchange Sorbents (e.g., MCX, MAX)	Provide orthogonal selectivity by combining reversed-phase and ion-exchange mechanisms for specific analyte classes [2] [4].	Selective extraction of basic (MCX) or acidic (MAX) drugs and metabolites.
Phospholipid Removal Plates	Plates packed with zirconia-coated silica that specifically capture and remove phospholipids from PPT supernatants [2] [3].	Reducing matrix effects in plasma and serum analysis post-protein precipitation.
µElution Plates	SPE plates designed for low-volume elution, minimizing analyte loss from non-specific binding and enabling high sample concentration [4].	Peptide analysis, sensitive bioanalysis where sample volume is limited.
High Purity Solvents and Buffers	Essential for mobile phase preparation and sample reconstitution to minimize background noise and contamination [1].	All LC-MS applications.
2-Bicyclo[2.1.1]hexanylmethanamine	2-Bicyclo[2.1.1]hexanylmethanamine HCl	2-Bicyclo[2.1.1]hexanylmethanamine hydrochloride is a rigid bicyclic amine building block for medicinal chemistry and drug discovery research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
2-Methyl-5-(quinoxalin-2-yl)aniline	2-Methyl-5-(quinoxalin-2-yl)aniline, CAS:433318-46-8, MF:C15H13N3, MW:235.29	Chemical Reagent

Sample preparation is a critical determinant of success in LC-MS analysis. While simpler techniques like dilution and protein precipitation have their place, Solid Phase Extraction offers a superior balance of analyte concentration and matrix depletion, directly addressing the pervasive challenges of matrix effects and insufficient sensitivity. By understanding the principles outlined in these application notes—from sorbent selection to protocol optimization—researchers can develop robust, reproducible, and sensitive LC-MS methods. The continued evolution of sorbent chemistries and a strategic approach to SPE method development ensure that this technique will remain a cornerstone of reliable bioanalysis in pharmaceutical research and beyond.

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) serves as a critical sample preparation step in LC-MS workflows, designed to purify, concentrate, and isolate analytes from complex matrices. The selection of an appropriate SPE device format is paramount for achieving optimal recovery, sensitivity, and throughput. This application note provides a detailed comparison of three prevalent SPE formats—cartridges, 96-well plates, and µElution plates—contextualized within modern bioanalytical frameworks. We summarize key performance characteristics in structured tables, present validated experimental protocols for direct implementation, and offer a strategic guide for format selection to support researchers and drug development professionals in enhancing their LC-MS analyses.

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) is a sample preparation technique that leverages a solid stationary phase and a liquid mobile phase to isolate analytes of interest from a sample matrix. The fundamental principles of SPE mirror those of liquid chromatography, involving processes of retention, washing, and elution to achieve purification and concentration [9]. The choice of SPE device format directly influences critical parameters such as analysis time, solvent consumption, potential for automation, and suitability for specific sample volumes.

While traditional SPE cartridges have been the workhorse format for decades, the drive for higher throughput and efficiency in laboratories has led to the development of multi-well formats, notably the 96-well SPE plate. More recently, µElution plates have emerged as a specialized format designed to address the need for high sensitivity with minimal elution volumes, thereby eliminating the time-consuming evaporation and reconstitution steps [10] [11]. The following sections delineate the characteristics, applications, and protocols for these three primary formats.

Comparative Analysis of SPE Formats

The table below provides a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the three SPE formats, synthesizing data from recent scientific literature to guide the selection process.

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of SPE Device Formats

Parameter	SPE Cartridges	96-Well Plates	µElution Plates
Typical Sorbent Mass	100 mg to 500 mg [12]	3 mg to 200 mg [12]	~2 mg [10] [11]
Sample Volume Range	500 µL to 50 mL [12]	~650 µL to 2 mL [12]	10 µL to 375 µL [10]
Typical Elution Volume	1-5 mL	50-200 µL	25-50 µL [10] [11]
Concentration Factor	Low to Moderate	Moderate	High (up to 15X) [10]
Throughput & Automation	Manual or semi-automated; lower throughput	High-throughput; amenable to full automation [13] [12]	High-throughput; amenable to full automation
Best-Suited Applications	Method development; small batch processing; large sample volumes	High-throughput bioanalysis; pharmacokinetic studies [11]	High-sensitivity assays; small sample volumes (e.g., micro-sampling) [10]
Key Advantages	• Flexibility in sorbent mass• Low cost per unit• Wide variety of available chemistries	• Processes 96 samples in parallel• Reduced solvent consumption vs. cartridges• Easily integrated with automated liquid handlers [13]	• No evaporation/reconstitution needed [11]• Maximizes sensitivity• Excellent recovery for diverse analytes [10]
Key Limitations	• Labor-intensive• Prone to channeling [12]• Lower reproducibility	• Higher initial cost for plates and compatible equipment• Potential for "edge effects" [14]	• Limited sample loading capacity• Not suitable for large volume samples

A pivotal consideration for 96-well plate formats is the "edge effect," a phenomenon where wells on the perimeter of the plate exhibit higher evaporation rates, leading to inconsistent results. One study demonstrated that cells in the outer wells of certain 96-well plates showed a 16-35% reduction in metabolic activity compared to central wells [14]. This effect is brand-dependent and can be mitigated by using plates designed for homogeneity, resealing plates during incubation, or adding buffer solution between the wells [14].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: µElution SPE for LC-MS/MS Determination of Drugs in Plasma

This protocol, adapted from a study on the analysis of simvastatin and simvastatin acid, leverages the µElution format to achieve high sensitivity with a streamlined workflow [11].

Research Reagent Solutions:

• Sorbent: Oasis HLB µElution Plate (2 mg sorbent per well) [11]
• Internal Standards: Stable isotope-labeled analogs of the target analytes.
• Buffers and Solvents: 2% methylamine in water, 10 mM ammonium acetate (pH ~4), methanol, and water.

Procedure:

• Conditioning: Load each well of the µElution plate with 200 µL of methanol.
• Equilibration: Load each well with 200 µL of water. Do not allow the sorbent to dry.
• Sample Loading: Acidify 300 µL of plasma sample with 300 µL of 2% methylamine solution. Load the entire sample mixture onto the conditioned sorbent.
• Washing: Wash the sorbent with 200 µL of 10 mM ammonium acetate (pH ~4), followed by 200 µL of a methanol/water (5:95, v/v) mixture.
• Elution: Completely elute the analytes into a clean collection plate using 2 x 50 µL of methanol. The low elution volume produces a ready-to-inject concentrate, eliminating the need for evaporation and reconstitution [11].

Key Outcome: The method achieved an extraction efficiency of 66% for simvastatin acid and 88% for simvastatin, with a lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) of 0.05 ng/mL using 0.3 mL of plasma, underscoring the format's suitability for high-sensitivity assays [11].

Protocol 2: Comparative Performance of 96-Well Plates vs. Pipette Tips for Proteomics

This protocol outlines a comparative study of two SPE formats (96-well plates vs. pipette tips) for peptide purification in a proteomic workflow, providing a template for evaluating format performance in specific applications [15].

Research Reagent Solutions:

• SPE Formats: SOLAµ HRP SPE 96-well spin plates (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and ZIPTIP C18 pipette tips (Merck Millipore).
• Biological Material: Porcine retinal tissue protein fractions extracted with 0.1% DDM or 1% TFA.
• Enzyme: Trypsin for in-gel digestion.

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Subject six technical replicates of each protein fraction to in-gel trypsin digestion.
• SPE Purification: Purify the resulting peptides using the two SPE workflows (N=3 per format per fraction).
• LC-MS Analysis: Analyze the purified peptides by LC-MS.
• Data Analysis: Compare the number of proteins and peptides identified, protein ion scores, and the quantitative recovery of 25 specific protein markers.

Key Outcome: The study found no significant difference in the number of identified proteins or peptides between the two formats. The 96-well plate format, however, offered superior analysis speed and was more convenient for semi-automation, making it preferable for high-throughput proteomic settings [15].

Format Selection Workflow

The following decision pathway provides a logical framework for selecting the most appropriate SPE device format based on project requirements.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The table below catalogs key materials and reagents essential for implementing the SPE protocols described in this note.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for SPE Protocols

Item Name	Function / Application	Specific Example(s)
µElution SPE Plate	Specialized 96-well plate for ultra-low elution volumes; eliminates evaporation/reconstitution.	Oasis µElution Plate [10] [11]
High-Capacity 96-Well SPE Plate	Standard 96-well format for high-throughput sample preparation with larger sample volumes.	SOLAµ HRP SPE Spin Plates [15]
Pipette-Tip SPE	Miniaturized SPE format for low-volume, manual or semi-automated sample clean-up.	ZIPTIP C18 Pipette Tips [15]
Mixed-Mode Sorbent	Sorbent providing both reversed-phase and ion-exchange mechanisms for superior clean-up.	Oasis MCX (Mixed-Mode Cation Exchange) [10]
Phospholipid Removal (PLR) Plate	Specialized plate that actively captures phospholipids to reduce matrix effects in LC-MS.	Microlute PLR Plate [16]
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	For quantitative LC-MS/MS; corrects for matrix effects and variability in sample preparation.	13CD3-Simvastatin and 13CD3-Simvastatin Acid [11]
2-(2-Aminoethyl)isoindolin-1-one	2-(2-Aminoethyl)isoindolin-1-one, CAS:350046-24-1, MF:C10H13BrN2O, MW:257.131	Chemical Reagent
2-(4-Ethylphenoxy)acetohydrazide	2-(4-Ethylphenoxy)acetohydrazide, CAS:300821-52-7, MF:C10H14N2O2, MW:194.234	Chemical Reagent

The choice between SPE cartridges, 96-well plates, and µElution plates is a strategic decision that directly impacts the efficiency, sensitivity, and robustness of an LC-MS assay. SPE cartridges remain a versatile tool for method development and processing variable sample sizes. 96-well plates are the undisputed format for high-throughput bioanalysis, though vigilance regarding edge effects is advised. µElution plates represent a significant advancement for high-sensitivity applications where maximizing analyte concentration and minimizing workflow steps are critical. By aligning project requirements—sample volume, throughput, and sensitivity needs—with the inherent strengths of each format, scientists can optimize their SPE workflows to meet the demanding challenges of modern drug development and biomedical research.

Sorbent capacity is a fundamental parameter in solid-phase extraction (SPE) method development, directly determining how much sample can be processed effectively while maintaining high analyte recovery. It refers to the maximum amount of analyte and interfering matrix components that a sorbent can retain without breakthrough occurring. Understanding capacity is crucial for designing robust, reproducible SPE methods, particularly in LC-MS sample preparation where matrix effects can significantly impact analytical results. The capacity of an SPE sorbent is influenced by multiple factors, including the specific surface area, the nature of the functional groups, ligand density, and the physicochemical properties of both the analyte and the sample matrix [17] [18].

For researchers in drug development, properly matching sorbent capacity to sample load is essential for achieving reliable quantitation, maintaining instrument performance, and ensuring the longevity of chromatographic systems. Insufficient sorbent capacity leads to analyte breakthrough during sample loading, resulting in lower recoveries and poor consistency between samples [18]. This application note provides comprehensive, practical guidelines for determining and optimizing sorbent capacity across the three primary classes of SPE materials: silica-based, polymeric, and ion-exchange sorbents, with a specific focus on LC-MS applications in pharmaceutical analysis.

Fundamental Principles of Sorbent Capacity

Defining Sorbent Capacity and Key Influencing Factors

Sorbent capacity in SPE is governed by both the total surface area available for interactions and the specific chemistry of those interactions. Polymeric sorbents typically exhibit higher capacity than their silica-based counterparts for several reasons: they possess higher specific surface areas (e.g., 1200 m²/g for materials like LiChrolut EN), lack a non-interacting solid support core, and the entire polymer structure can participate in the retention mechanism. In contrast, silica-based sorbents have capacity limited to the bonded phase attached to the silica surface, which does not constitute the entire mass of the particle [17] [18].

The operational capacity is not an absolute value but is relative to the sample matrix. A single sorbent can have different effective capacities depending on whether it is processing plasma, urine, water, or tissue homogenates. This is because endogenous materials in the sample (e.g., proteins, lipids, salts) will compete with the target analytes for binding sites on the sorbent. As a general rule, polymeric sorbents can typically retain an amount of material equivalent to 10-15% of their total bed mass, while silica-based sorbents have a lower generic loading capacity of approximately 5% of total bed mass [18].

Mechanisms of Analyte Retention

The primary retention mechanisms in SPE include reversed-phase (hydrophobic interactions), ion-exchange (ionic interactions), and mixed-mode (a combination of both). The capacity for each mechanism differs significantly:

• Reversed-phase mechanisms depend on hydrophobic interactions between the analyte and the non-polar functional groups on the sorbent (e.g., C18, polystyrene-divinylbenzene). Capacity increases with analyte hydrophobicity and sorbent surface area [17].
• Ion-exchange mechanisms utilize ionic interactions between charged functional groups on the sorbent and ionized groups on the analyte. These interactions are typically stronger than hydrophobic interactions and can provide very high selectivity and capacity for ionizable compounds when operated at the appropriate pH [17] [19].
• Mixed-mode sorbents incorporate both reversed-phase and ion-exchange functionalities, allowing for orthogonal retention mechanisms. This is particularly valuable for purifying basic or acidic pharmaceuticals from complex biological matrices, as the sorbent can retain analytes based on both hydrophobicity and ionic interactions, often resulting in cleaner extracts [19].

Capacity Guidelines by Sorbent Chemistry

Silica-Based Sorbents

Silica-based sorbents, including those bonded with C18, C8, NH2, and other functional groups, are mechanically stable and resistant to organic solvents but have a limited pH stability range (typically pH 2-9). A significant consideration with silica-based materials is the presence of residual silanol groups, which can lead to secondary interactions (especially with basic compounds), potentially affecting both recovery and apparent capacity. These ionized silanols can create strong electrostatic interactions with protonated amines that are difficult to overcome during elution [17].

Table 1: Recommended Sample Loading Volumes for Silica-Based Sorbents [18]

Sorbent Mass	Plasma/Serum	Urine	Particulate-Free Water	Food/Plant Material
25 mg	100 µL	250 µL	25 mL	125 mg
50 mg	250 µL	500 µL	50 mL	250 mg
100 mg	500 µL	2 mL	100 mL	500 mg
200 mg	1 mL	4 mL	200 mL	1 g
500 mg	2 mL	8 mL	500 mL	2.5 g
1 g	5 mL	20 mL	1 L	5 g

Polymeric Sorbents

Polymeric sorbents, such as those based on polystyrene-divinylbenzene (PS-DVB) copolymers, offer distinct advantages including a wider pH tolerance (pH 0-14), no residual silanols, and higher surface areas leading to greater capacity. An important practical advantage is that polymeric phases can dry out during the SPE procedure without adversely affecting analyte recovery or reproducibility, unlike silica-based phases which can "dewet" and become deactivated [17].

Table 2: Recommended Sample Loading Volumes for Polymeric Sorbents [18]

Sorbent Mass	Plasma/Serum	Urine	Particulate-Free Water	Food/Plant Material
10 mg	100 µL	250 µL	20 mL	100 mg
30 mg	250 µL	1 mL	60 mL	300 mg
60 mg	500 µL	2 mL	120 mL	600 mg
100 mg	1 mL	4 mL	200 mL	1 g
200 mg	2 mL	8 mL	400 mL	2 g
500 mg	5 mL	20 mL	1 L	5 g

Comparative studies demonstrate the capacity advantage of polymeric sorbents. For instance, LiChrolut EN, an ethylvinylbenzene-DVB copolymer with a surface area of 1200 m²/g, showed an order of magnitude increase in capacity for polar compounds like caffeine compared to conventional C18 silica sorbents [17].

Ion-Exchange and Mixed-Mode Sorbents

Ion-exchange capacity depends on the number and type of ionic functional groups. Strong cation-exchange (SCX) sorbents contain sulfonic acid groups, weak cation-exchange (WCX) have carboxylic acids, strong anion-exchange (SAX) have quaternary amines, and weak anion-exchange (WAX) have primary or secondary amines. Mixed-mode sorbents combine ion-exchange with reversed-phase interactions, which is particularly useful for extracting ionizable pharmaceuticals from biological matrices [17] [19].

The capacity of ion-exchange sorbents is maximized when the analyte and sorbent functional groups are fully ionized and oppositely charged. This requires careful pH control during the sample loading step. For mixed-mode sorbents, the total capacity reflects both the ionic and hydrophobic retention sites. Recent advances include the development of zwitterionic mixed-mode sorbents functionalized with both strong cation- and strong anion-exchange moieties simultaneously, allowing for the extraction of both acidic and basic compounds in a single step [19].

Experimental Protocols for Capacity Determination

Protocol 1: Breakthrough Capacity Testing

Purpose: To determine the maximum sample loading capacity for a specific analyte-sorbent combination.

Materials:

• SPE manifolds and vacuum source
• SPE cartridges packed with test sorbent
• Standard solution of target analyte in appropriate solvent
• HPLC or LC-MS system for analysis

Procedure:

• Condition the SPE cartridge according to manufacturer recommendations (typically with methanol followed by water or buffer).
• Prepare a series of standard solutions with known concentrations of the target analyte.
• Load increasing volumes of the standard solution onto separate SPE cartridges.
• Collect the effluent (the liquid that passes through during sample loading).
• Wash the cartridge with an appropriate solvent (typically water or a weak buffer) and collect the wash fraction.
• Elute the retained analytes with a strong elution solvent and collect the eluate.
• Analyze all fractions (effluent, wash, and eluate) by LC-MS to quantify the analyte in each.
• Plot the recovery (%) against the absolute amount of analyte loaded (µg).
• The breakthrough capacity is defined as the amount loaded where recovery drops below 90-95%.

Calculation: Breakthrough Capacity = (Vbreakthrough × Canalyte) / msorbent Where Vbreakthrough is the volume at which breakthrough occurs, Canalyte is the analyte concentration, and msorbent is the mass of sorbent.

Protocol 2: Competitive Binding in Complex Matrices

Purpose: To evaluate effective capacity in the presence of matrix components that compete for binding sites.

Materials:

• Biological matrix (plasma, urine, tissue homogenate)
• Isotopically labeled internal standards
• Mixed-mode or selective sorbents

Procedure:

• Spike the biological matrix with a constant amount of internal standard and increasing concentrations of the target analyte.
• Process each sample through the SPE procedure using fixed sorbent mass.
• Analyze eluates by LC-MS/MS.
• Plot the measured analyte concentration against the spiked concentration.
• Note the point where the measured concentration deviates from linearity, indicating saturation of binding sites.
• Compare results across different sorbent masses (e.g., 30 mg vs. 60 mg) to determine optimal sorbent mass for the application.

This protocol is particularly important for methods intended for bioanalysis, as the presence of phospholipids, proteins, and other endogenous compounds can significantly reduce the available capacity for target analytes.

Advanced Sorbent Technologies and Applications

Monolithic vs. Particle-Based SPE

Monolithic SPE (m-SPE) utilizes a single, porous polymer structure rather than individual packed particles. Recent comparative studies between monolithic and particle-packed SPE (p-SPE) for selective separation applications have demonstrated that m-SPE columns offer enhanced performance due to their "high permeability, low backpressure, and robust porosity," which collectively result in "enhanced selectivity, reproducibility, and overall efficiency" [20]. These characteristics are particularly beneficial for processing large volume samples or samples with particulate matter that might clog traditional particle-based SPE columns.

Zwitterionic Mixed-Mode Sorbents

Recent innovations in sorbent technology include the development of zwitterionic mixed-mode sorbents that incorporate both cation- and anion-exchange functionalities in a single material. These sorbents are particularly valuable for screening methods that target both acidic and basic pharmaceuticals. In one application, researchers developed a sol-gel derived silica sorbent functionalized with 2-(methacryloxy)-ethyldimethyl-3-(sulfopropyl)ammonium hydroxide, which contains both sulfonic acid groups (strong cation-exchanger) and quaternary amines (strong anion-exchanger) [19]. This material demonstrated effective extraction of a panel of five acidic and five basic pharmaceuticals from environmental water samples, with apparent recoveries higher than 30% for most compounds and method detection limits at the low ng/L level.

High-Throughput SPE in Exposomics

The move toward high-throughput analysis in fields like exposomics has driven the adaptation of SPE to 96-well plate formats. A recent study developed a robust and scalable SPE protocol for human urine and plasma optimized for 94 diverse environmental contaminants [21]. The method achieved acceptable extraction recoveries (60-140%) for >70% of analytes and improved throughput approximately 10× compared to routine metabolomics-based protein precipitation approaches when processing 1000 samples. This demonstrates how proper sorbent capacity optimization can translate to significant efficiency gains in large-scale studies.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Sorbent Capacity Evaluation

Reagent/Sorbent Type	Function & Application	Key Characteristics
LiChrolut EN (PS-DVB)	High-capacity polymeric sorbent for polar compounds	1200 m²/g surface area, balanced hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity
Zwitterionic Mixed-Mode Sorbents	Simultaneous extraction of acidic and basic analytes	Contains both SCX and SAX moieties, wide pH stability
AnaLig Pb-02	Selective for lead separation in environmental samples	Crown ether functionalized for molecular recognition
SampliQ OPT Polymer	Pharmaceutical extraction with drying tolerance	Polyamide-DVB character, unaffected by drying between steps
Monolithic SPE Columns	High-flow applications with low backpressure	Continuous porous polymer structure, high permeability
Strata-X Series	Versatile polymeric sorbents for various matrices	Multiple chemistries (reversed-phase, ion-exchange, mixed-mode)

Sorbent capacity is a critical parameter that must be carefully considered during SPE method development for LC-MS sample preparation. The following best practices are recommended:

• Always conduct preliminary breakthrough experiments when developing methods for new analytes or matrices, as theoretical capacity may not reflect performance in complex samples.
• Select sorbent chemistry based on analyte properties - use reversed-phase for hydrophobic compounds, ion-exchange for ionizable compounds, and mixed-mode for complex matrices.
• Leverage the higher capacity of polymeric sorbents (10-15% of bed mass) when processing samples with high endogenous interferent levels or when analyzing multiple compound classes.
• Consider the sample matrix carefully when determining sorbent mass, as capacity guidelines differ significantly between plasma, urine, water, and other matrices.
• Utilize mixed-mode and zwitterionic sorbents for applications requiring simultaneous extraction of acidic and basic compounds, as they provide orthogonal retention mechanisms and often cleaner extracts.

By applying these guidelines and protocols, researchers in drug development can optimize SPE methods that deliver consistent, high-quality results in their LC-MS analyses, ultimately supporting more reliable pharmacokinetic, metabolomic, and bioanalytical studies.

Advanced SPE Method Development: Protocols for Diverse Applications and Matrices

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent a large class of over 4,700 synthetic fluorinated aliphatic compounds characterized by their environmental persistence and potential health impacts [22]. The analysis of these "forever chemicals" in environmental samples demands highly selective and robust analytical methods. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 1633 has emerged as a comprehensive, multi-laboratory validated approach for measuring 40 target PFAS compounds across diverse matrices including aqueous, solid, biosolid, and tissue samples [23] [22].

This application note details the implementation of EPA Method 1633 using weak anion exchange (WAX) solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridges for the selective isolation and concentration of PFAS from water matrices. The WAX sorbent provides specific retention mechanisms for anionic PFAS compounds, while the method's performance-based characteristics allow for adjustments to optimize recovery and sensitivity [22]. The workflow encompasses sample preparation, SPE using WAX cartridges, clean-up steps, and final analysis by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), achieving the rigorous sensitivity and precision required for environmental monitoring and regulatory compliance.

Experimental Protocols

Solutions and Standards Preparation

Native PFAS standards (40 compounds) and isotopically labeled standards (31 compounds) are prepared as methanolic stock solutions (50 µg/mL) [22]. The labeled compounds serve as either extracted internal standards (EIS, 24 compounds) added before extraction or non-extracted internal standards (NIS, 7 compounds) added post-cleanup for recovery determination [22]. A series of seven calibration solutions (CS1-CS7) is prepared with native PFAS concentrations ranging from 0.2-5 ng/mL (CS1) to 62.5-1560 ng/mL (CS7) to establish the instrument calibration curve [22].

Sample Preparation and Solid-Phase Extraction

The following protocol is optimized for 500 mL aqueous samples [22]:

• Sample Preservation: Collect water samples in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles with liner-less polypropylene caps. Spike with 24 EIS standards immediately upon collection [22].
• SPE Cartridge Conditioning: Condition the Supelclean ENVI-WAX SPE tubes (500 mg/6 mL) with 15 mL of 1.0% NHâ‚„OH in methanol, then equilibrate with 5 mL of aqueous 0.3 M formic acid [22].
• Sample Loading: Load the 500 mL sample through the cartridge using a PTFE-free vacuum manifold [22].
• Washing: Rinse with 2 × 5 mL of reagent water followed by 5 mL of 0.1 M formic acid/methanol (1:1 v/v) [22].
• Elution: Elute analytes with 5 mL of 1.0% NHâ‚„OH in methanol [22].
• Clean-up: Add 25 µL concentrated acetic acid and approximately 10 mg Supelclean ENVI-Carb to the eluate. Vortex for <5 minutes, then centrifuge at 4000 × g for 10 minutes [22].
• Final Preparation: Filter supernatant through 0.2 µm nylon syringe filters into collection tubes containing NIS standards, achieving a 100:1 concentration factor [22].

Instrumental Analysis

LC-MS/MS analysis is performed using an Agilent 1290 Infinity II LC system coupled to an Agilent 6495C triple quadrupole mass spectrometer [22]. Key parameters include:

• Chromatography: Ascentis Express PFAS analytical column (5 cm × 2.1 mm, 2.7 µm) with a matching PFAS delay column to offset potential background contamination [22].
• Mobile Phase: Gradient elution with methanol/water containing ammonium acetate or formate [24].
• Mass Spectrometry: Negative electrospray ionization with multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode [22].
• Injection Volume: 1-5 µL using polypropylene snap-cap vials to prevent PFAS adsorption [22].

PFAS Analysis Workflow Using WAX SPE and EPA 1633 - This diagram illustrates the comprehensive sample preparation and analysis process for targeted PFAS analysis, from sample collection through final quantification.

Results and Discussion

Method Performance Characteristics

The WAX-based SPE method demonstrated robust performance across all 40 target PFAS compounds, with recoveries and precision meeting EPA Method 1633 acceptance criteria for aqueous matrices [22].

Table 1: PFAS Recovery Data from Spiked Water Samples Using WAX SPE Cartridges

Fortification Level	Number of Compounds	Average Recovery Range (%)	RSD Range (%)
Low (2×CS1)	40 PFAS + 24 EIS	84.0 - 110.7	0.2 - 18.1
Medium (12.5×CS1)	40 PFAS + 24 EIS	85.3 - 112.2	0.5 - 15.8
High (40×CS1)	40 PFAS + 24 EIS	82.7 - 108.9	0.7 - 16.3

All recovery values fell within the EPA acceptable range of 70-130% with relative standard deviations (RSDs) below 20%, confirming the method's excellent precision and accuracy [22]. The WAX sorbent's selective retention mechanism for anionic PFAS compounds contributed to this consistent performance across diverse PFAS classes, including perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs), perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs), and emerging PFAS categories [22].

Sensitivity and Linear Range

The method achieved impressive sensitivity with method detection limits (MDLs) below 0.02 µg/g dry weight for most compounds in solid matrices [24]. For aqueous samples, reporting limits typically ranged from 1-100 ng/L, demonstrating the method's capability to detect PFAS at the low parts-per-trillion levels required for environmental monitoring [23]. Linear calibration curves exhibited determination coefficients (R²) ≥ 0.99 across the analytical range, enabling reliable quantification from minimal concentrations to over 1500 ng/mL [22].

Table 2: Key Method Performance Characteristics for Targeted PFAS Analysis

Parameter	Performance Characteristics	Methodology
Target Analytes	40 PFAS compounds across 9 classes	EPA Method 1633 [22]
Extraction Efficiency	70-130% recovery for all compounds	Isotope dilution quantification [22]
Precision	RSD < 15% for most compounds	Triple quadrupole LC-MS/MS [24] [22]
Sensitivity	MDL < 0.02 µg/g for most compounds; Aqueous reporting limits: 1-100 ng/L	Optimized MRM transitions [23] [24]
Linearity	R² ≥ 0.99 across calibration range	7-point calibration [22]

Comparison with Other Methodologies

While EPA Methods 533 and 537.1 are validated for drinking water analysis, EPA Method 1633 provides broader applicability across multiple matrices including wastewater, surface water, groundwater, soil, sediment, biosolids, and fish tissue [25] [23]. The method's "performance-based" designation allows laboratories to modify specific parameters while demonstrating equivalent performance, facilitating method optimization for challenging matrices [22]. This flexibility is particularly valuable for addressing matrix effects in complex environmental samples like landfill leachate and wastewater, where co-extracted interferents can compromise analytical accuracy [23].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of EPA Method 1633 requires careful selection of reagents and materials to minimize background contamination and ensure analytical integrity.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for PFAS Analysis Using WAX SPE

Item	Function	Specification	Critical Notes
WAX SPE Cartridges	Selective retention of anionic PFAS	Supelclean ENVI-WAX (500 mg/6 mL) [22]	Dual-bed WAX/GCB cartridges available for enhanced cleanup [26]
Isotopically Labeled Standards	Quantification and recovery correction	31 compounds (13C or D labeled) [22]	Essential for isotope dilution mass spectrometry
LC-MS/MS Solvents	Mobile phase preparation	PFAS-free LC-MS grade methanol, water [24]	Must be certified PFAS-free to prevent background contamination
Carbon Cleanup Sorbent	Removal of matrix interferents	Supelclean ENVI-Carb [22]	Added post-elution for dispersive SPE cleanup
Chromatography Columns	PFAS separation and delay	Ascentis Express PFAS analytical and delay columns [22]	Delay column traps system-derived PFAS contamination
Sample Containers	Sample collection and storage	HDPE bottles with polypropylene caps [22]	Liner-less caps prevent PFAS introduction
Filtration Materials	Post-cleanup filtration	0.2 µm nylon syringe filters [22]	Avoid PTFE filters to prevent contamination [24]
5-Bromo-3-fluoroisatoic anhydride	5-Bromo-3-fluoroisatoic Anhydride|	5-Bromo-3-fluoroisatoic Anhydride is a chemical synthesis building block For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
Methyl 2-cyclopropyl-2-oxoacetate	Methyl 2-cyclopropyl-2-oxoacetate, CAS:6395-79-5, MF:C6H8O3, MW:128.127	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Technical Considerations and Optimization Strategies

Contamination Control

PFAS contamination presents a significant analytical challenge due to the ubiquitous presence of these compounds in laboratory environments and materials [27]. Critical control measures include:

• Using PTFE-free instrumentation and consumables throughout the analytical process [22]
• Implementing delay columns in the LC system to capture background PFAS [22]
• Employing PFAS-free water and solvents, verified through rigorous blank testing [28]
• Establishing dedicated laboratory areas for low-level PFAS analysis [27]
• Using polypropylene vials instead of glass to prevent PFAS adsorption [22]

Matrix-Specific Modifications

While this protocol focuses on aqueous matrices, EPA Method 1633 applies to diverse sample types. Solid matrices (soils, sediments, biosolids) typically require accelerated solvent extraction or ultrasound-assisted extraction prior to WAX SPE cleanup [24]. Tissue samples necessitate additional purification steps to remove co-extracted lipids and proteins that may interfere with analysis [26]. The method's performance-based nature allows for such modifications provided that all quality control criteria are met [22].

Analytical Scope and Limitations

Although EPA Method 1633 targets 40 PFAS compounds, this represents only a fraction of the thousands of PFAS in commercial use [23]. For comprehensive contamination assessment, analysts may complement targeted methods with approaches like the Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) assay or Adsorbable Organic Fluorine (AOF) analysis to capture non-target PFAS [23]. Method 1633 effectively captures legacy PFAS (PFOA, PFOS) and many emerging alternatives, though ultra-short-chain compounds (C2-C3) may require specialized approaches due to their high polarity and poor retention on WAX sorbents [29].

The application of WAX solid-phase extraction cartridges in conjunction with EPA Method 1633 provides a robust, sensitive, and reliable framework for targeted PFAS analysis in water matrices. The method demonstrates exceptional performance with recoveries of 84.0-110.7% for all 40 target PFAS compounds and corresponding RSDs below 20%, well within EPA acceptance criteria [22]. The selective retention properties of WAX sorbents for anionic PFAS, combined with effective clean-up using graphitized carbon black, enable precise quantification at environmentally relevant concentrations.

This comprehensive protocol offers environmental researchers and analytical laboratories a standardized approach for PFAS monitoring that supports regulatory compliance and environmental risk assessment. The performance-based nature of EPA Method 1633 allows for necessary adaptations to address specific project requirements and matrix challenges while maintaining data quality and defensibility [22]. As PFAS regulations continue to evolve globally, this methodology provides a foundation for consistent, accurate, and reproducible PFAS analysis across diverse environmental monitoring applications.

The analysis of pharmaceutical contaminants in wastewater is critical for environmental monitoring and public health protection. Solid-phase extraction (SPE) using Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balanced (HLB) cartridges has emerged as a preferred sample preparation technique for isolating diverse pharmaceutical compounds from complex aqueous matrices prior to liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis. HLB sorbents provide simultaneous extraction of acidic, basic, and neutral compounds without pH adjustment, offering significant advantages over traditional sorbents [30]. This application note details optimized protocols and critical parameters for maximizing recovery efficiency of pharmaceutical contaminants using HLB cartridge technology, providing researchers with validated methods for reliable analyte extraction.

Theoretical Background

HLB Sorbent Chemistry and Mechanism

The Oasis HLB sorbent is a macroporous copolymer of divinylbenzene and N-vinylpyrrolidone designed with balanced hydrophilic and lipophilic properties. This unique chemistry enables effective retention of a wide spectrum of pharmaceuticals with varying polarities and physicochemical properties [30]. The lipophilic divinylbenzene components provide reversed-phase retention mechanisms for non-polar compounds, while the hydrophilic N-vinylpyrrolidone moieties retain polar compounds through hydrogen bonding and polar interactions. This dual functionality makes HLB particularly suitable for wastewater applications where pharmaceuticals with diverse chemical structures coexist.

Advantages for Pharmaceutical Extraction in Wastewater

HLB cartridges demonstrate superior performance for pharmaceutical extraction from wastewater matrices due to several key characteristics: high capacity (typically 10-30 mg/mL), excellent wettability allowing consistent flow even under dry conditions, and stability across the entire pH range (pH 1-14) [30]. The sorbent maintains performance with complex environmental samples containing humic acids, particulate matter, and other interfering substances commonly found in wastewater. Batch equilibrium studies have demonstrated partition ratios (K~D~) for organic pollutants on HLB sorbents ranging from 1.16 × 10³ L/kg to 1.07 × 10⁶ L/kg, confirming strong affinity for diverse contaminants [31].

Experimental Protocols

Sample Collection and Preservation

Proper sample handling is crucial for maintaining analyte integrity. Collect wastewater samples in clean, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers due to their chemical resistance and minimal analyte adsorption [32]. Immediately after collection, acidify samples to pH 2-3 using high-purity hydrochloric acid or formic acid to preserve analyte stability [33]. Store samples at 4°C and process within 24-48 hours of collection. For longer storage, maintain samples at -20°C. Filter samples through 0.45-μm glass fiber filters prior to SPE to remove suspended particulates that could clog extraction cartridges.

HLB Cartridge Conditioning and Loading

The conditioning sequence is critical for activating the sorbent and ensuring reproducible retention:

• Conditioning: Sequentially pass 3-5 mL of methanol (or acetonitrile) and 3-5 mL of reagent-grade water through the HLB cartridge (60 mg, 3 cc) at a flow rate of approximately 1-2 mL/min [33]. Do not allow the sorbent to dry completely before sample loading.

• Sample Loading: Pass the filtered wastewater sample (typically 100-500 mL depending on analyte concentration) through the conditioned HLB cartridge at a controlled flow rate of 5-10 mL/min using a vacuum manifold system [33]. Maintaining consistent flow is essential for optimal analyte retention.

• Rinsing: After sample loading, wash the cartridge with 3-5 mL of reagent water containing 5% methanol to remove weakly retained interferents [30].

Analyte Elution and Concentration

Select appropriate elution solvents based on the physicochemical properties of target pharmaceuticals:

• Elution: Pass 4-6 mL of organic solvent through the cartridge to desorb retained analytes. Common elution schemes include:

  • 2 × 2 mL methanol [33]
  • 2 × 2 mL acetonitrile
  • Combination solvents: methanol:acetonitrile (50:50, v/v) or methanol with 2% ammonium hydroxide [30]

• Concentration: Gently evaporate the eluate to dryness under a stream of nitrogen at 30-40°C. Reconstitute the residue in 100-500 μL of initial mobile phase composition (typically 50:50 methanol:water or acetonitrile:water) compatible with subsequent LC-MS analysis [33].

Quality Assurance Measures

Implement comprehensive quality controls for reliable data:

• Procedural Blanks: Analyze reagent water samples processed identically to wastewater samples to monitor contamination.
• Matrix Spikes: Fortify wastewater samples with target analytes before extraction to determine method recovery.
• Internal Standards: Use isotopically labeled analog internal standards (when available) to correct for procedural losses and matrix effects [33].
• Recovery Assessment: Calculate percentage recovery using the formula: %recovery = (spiked sample concentration - unspiked sample concentration) / concentration used to spike × 100 [33]. Acceptable recoveries typically range from 70-120% for most pharmaceuticals.

Critical Optimization Parameters

Flow Rate Control

Maintaining optimal flow rates during sample loading significantly impacts extraction efficiency. Excessive flow rates (>10 mL/min) can compromise analyte retention, particularly for more polar compounds. For 60 mg HLB cartridges, flow rates of 5-10 mL/min provide the best balance between processing time and extraction efficiency [33]. Using vacuum manifolds with adjustable pressure controls enables reproducible flow rate management across multiple samples.

Sample pH Adjustment

pH manipulation represents a powerful optimization strategy, particularly for ionizable pharmaceuticals:

• Acidic compounds (e.g., ibuprofen, diclofenac): Acidify samples to pH 2-3 to suppress ionization and enhance reversed-phase retention on HLB sorbent [33].
• Basic compounds (e.g., tramadol): For improved retention, adjust to alkaline conditions (pH 9-10) to maintain neutral form.
• Broad-spectrum analysis: For simultaneous extraction of multiple drug classes without pH adjustment, HLB sorbents still provide adequate retention for most compounds due to their balanced chemistry [30].

Elution Solvent Optimization

Elution efficiency varies significantly with solvent composition:

• Methanol: Effective for a wide range of moderate to high polarity pharmaceuticals.
• Acetonitrile: Superior for non-polar compounds and provides cleaner extracts with less co-elution of matrix interferents.
• Modified solvents: Addition of 2-5% ammonium hydroxide or formic acid can improve elution efficiency for strongly basic or acidic compounds, respectively [30].

Table 1: Pharmaceutical Contaminants in Wastewater and HLB Extraction Performance

Pharmaceutical	Influent Concentration (μg/L)	HLB Extraction Recovery (%)	Optimal Sample pH	Preferred Elution Solvent
Ibuprofen	28.00 [32]	83-95 [30]	2-3	Methanol
Diclofenac	27.20 [32]	85-98 [30]	2-3	Methanol with 2% formic acid
Paracetamol	22.03 [32]	80-92 [30]	Unadjusted	Acetonitrile
Tramadol	<0.01 [32]	88-102 [30]	9-10	Methanol with 2% NHâ‚„OH
Metformin	1243 [33]	83.17 [33]	Unadjusted	Methanol
Caffeine	NA	86.42 [33]	Unadjusted	Acetonitrile:methanol (50:50)
Sulfamethoxazole	NA	73.53 [33]	6-7	Acetonitrile

Cartridge Capacity Considerations

The 60 mg HLB cartridge format typically accommodates 100-500 mL wastewater samples, but required sorbent mass depends on sample volume and contaminant loading. For highly contaminated wastewater, decrease sample volume or increase sorbent mass (e.g., 200 mg cartridges) to prevent breakthrough. Performance validation should demonstrate >85% recovery for target analytes at selected loading conditions [30].

Analytical Instrumentation and Method Parameters

LC-MS/MS Analysis Conditions

After HLB extraction, analyze pharmaceutical contaminants using optimized LC-MS/MS parameters:

• Chromatographic Column: C18 column (50-150 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7-5 μm) [34]
• Mobile Phase: (A) 0.1% formic acid in water; (B) 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile or methanol [34]
• Gradient Program: 5-95% B over 10-20 minutes, depending on analyte complexity
• Flow Rate: 0.2-0.4 mL/min [34]
• Injection Volume: 5-20 μL
• Ionization Mode: Electrospray ionization (ESI) positive/negative switching
• Detection: Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) for optimal sensitivity and selectivity

Table 2: Method Validation Parameters for Pharmaceutical Analysis in Wastewater

Validation Parameter	Acceptance Criteria	Metformin [33]	Caffeine [33]	Sulfamethoxazole [33]
Limit of Detection (LOD)	-	0.322 mg/L	0.033 mg/L	0.072 mg/L
Limit of Quantification (LOQ)	-	0.974 mg/L	0.099 mg/L	0.219 mg/L
Intra-day Precision (%RSD)	<15%	2.63	1.47	1.58
Inter-day Precision (%RSD)	<15%	3.75	2.32	0.96
Linearity (R²)	>0.990	0.9909	0.9936	0.9942

Troubleshooting Common Issues

Low Analytic Recovery

• Cause: Incomplete elution, sorbent breakthrough, or inadequate conditioning.
• Solution: Increase elution solvent strength (e.g., add acid/base modifiers), reduce sample loading volume, ensure proper sorbent conditioning, and verify cartridge storage conditions.

Poor Reproducibility

• Cause: Inconsistent flow rates during sample loading or elution, variable vacuum pressure, or cartridge lot variations.
• Solution: Use calibrated vacuum manifolds with pressure regulation, maintain consistent flow rates (5-10 mL/min), and qualify new cartridge lots with standard mixtures.

Elevated Background Noise in LC-MS

• Cause: Co-elution of matrix interferents from wastewater samples.
• Solution: Implement additional washing steps (e.g., 5% methanol in water), optimize elution solvent to minimize co-extraction of interferents, or consider using Oasis PRiME HLB for enhanced matrix removal [30].

Applications and Environmental Relevance

HLB-based extraction methods enable sensitive detection and quantification of pharmaceutical contaminants in wastewater, supporting environmental risk assessment. Studies applying these methods have identified concerning levels of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents, with risk quotients (RQs) indicating potential toxicity to aquatic organisms [32]. For instance, pharmaceutical effluents have demonstrated toxicity to daphnia and fish, highlighting the environmental importance of robust monitoring methodologies [32]. Proper HLB optimization facilitates accurate determination of removal efficiencies at wastewater treatment plants, which range from 7.70% to >99.99% for different pharmaceuticals [33].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for HLB-Based Pharmaceutical Extraction

Item	Specification	Application Purpose
Oasis HLB Cartridges	60 mg, 3 cc [33]	Primary extraction sorbent for broad-spectrum pharmaceutical retention
HPLC-grade Methanol	>99.9% purity [32]	Cartridge conditioning and analyte elution
HPLC-grade Acetonitrile	>99.9% purity [32]	Alternative elution solvent, particularly for non-polar compounds
Formic Acid	LC-MS grade, >98% purity [33]	Mobile phase additive and sample acidification
Ammonium Hydroxide	LC-MS grade, 25-30% NH₃	Elution modifier for basic pharmaceuticals
Hydrochloric Acid	Trace metals grade [35]	Sample preservation through pH adjustment
Water	LC-MS grade, 18.2 MΩ·cm resistance [33]	Mobile phase preparation and cartridge conditioning
Internal Standards	Isotopically labeled pharmaceutical analogs	Quantification correction for matrix effects and procedural losses
Potassium;4-formylbenzenesulfonate	Potassium;4-formylbenzenesulfonate, CAS:54110-22-4, MF:C7H5KO4S, MW:224.27	Chemical Reagent
3-Formylphenyl 3-chlorobenzoate	3-Formylphenyl 3-chlorobenzoate|CAS 444285-23-8	High-purity 3-Formylphenyl 3-chlorobenzoate for research (RUO). A key building block for synthesizing advanced organic materials. Not for human or veterinary use.

Workflow and Optimization Diagrams

HLB Extraction Workflow

Troubleshooting Logic

Optimized HLB cartridge protocols provide robust, reproducible extraction of pharmaceutical contaminants from complex wastewater matrices. Critical success factors include controlled flow rates (5-10 mL/min), appropriate pH manipulation based on analyte properties, and optimized elution schemes. The presented methods enable reliable sample preparation for LC-MS analysis, supporting accurate environmental monitoring and risk assessment of pharmaceutical contaminants in wastewater systems. Proper implementation of these optimized protocols allows researchers to achieve consistent recovery rates of 70-120% for most target pharmaceuticals, ensuring data quality for regulatory decisions and treatment efficiency evaluations.

Mycotoxins are toxic secondary metabolites produced by filamentous fungi that pose a significant and unavoidable threat to the global food and feed supply chains. These contaminants, produced primarily by Aspergillus, Fusarium, Penicillium, and Alternaria species, exhibit a broad range of adverse health effects including carcinogenicity, nephrotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and endocrine disruption [36]. The challenge of mycotoxin contamination is intensifying due to the effects of climate change, with shifting weather patterns and temperature profiles facilitating the geographical expansion of mycotoxigenic fungi and altering established contamination patterns [36]. Recent 2025 harvest analysis data reveals alarming contamination trends, including an aflatoxin resurgence in Southern Europe and widespread multi-mycotoxin contamination in North American grains, with over 45% of European corn grain samples testing positive for aflatoxin B1 and 95% of U.S. corn silage samples containing fusaric acid [37].

Effective management of mycotoxin risks requires precise analytical methods capable of detecting these toxic compounds at increasingly lower concentrations. Regulatory frameworks established by the European Union and U.S. FDA set strict maximum limits for major mycotoxins in food and feed [36]. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) has emerged as the gold standard for multiclass mycotoxin analysis due to its high sensitivity and specificity. However, the complexity of food and feed matrices presents significant analytical challenges, necessitating robust sample preparation techniques to minimize matrix effects and concentrate target analytes [38] [39].

This application note presents optimized protocols for multiclass mycotoxin analysis using enhanced matrix removal (EMR) lipid cleanup technology within a solid-phase extraction (SPE) framework. The methodologies detailed herein are designed to streamline analytical workflows, improve data quality, and enhance laboratory efficiency for researchers and analytical scientists monitoring mycotoxin contamination.

Current Mycotoxin Contamination Landscape

The global mycotoxin threat shows concerning trends according to the most recent 2025 data. Table 1 summarizes key mycotoxin prevalence and associated risks across different regions, highlighting the necessity for robust monitoring programs.

Table 1: Regional Mycotoxin Prevalence and Risk Profiles (2025 Data)

Region	Commodity	Predominant Mycotoxins	Contamination Level & Prevalence	Key Risks
Europe	Corn grain	Aflatoxin B1	45% samples positive; avg 23 ppb (max 733 ppb) [37]	Exceeds EU limit of 20 ppb [36]
Europe	Wheat & barley	Fumonisins, Type B trichothecenes	~6 mycotoxins/sample on average [37]	Multi-mycotoxin complex risk
Europe	Forages	Penicillium mycotoxins	88% contamination rate [37]	Dairy production risk
United States	Corn silage	Fusaric acid, Type B trichothecenes	95% and 86% occurrence respectively [37]	Milk yield reduction (-0.32 kg/cow/day) [37]
Canada	Barley	Deoxynivalenol (DON)	74% occurrence; max 8,500 ppb [37]	Swine productivity (ADG -58 g/day) [37]

Regulatory standards for mycotoxins in food and feed establish critical thresholds for monitoring programs. Table 2 compares the EU and U.S. FDA regulatory limits for major mycotoxins, providing essential context for analytical method development and risk assessment.

Table 2: Regulatory Limits for Selected Mycotoxins in Food and Feed (µg/kg)

Mycotoxin	Commodity Group	EU Limit (µg/kg)	US FDA Limit (µg/kg)	Legislative Source
Aflatoxin B1	Dried fruits, nuts, cereals	2.0–12.0	20,000 (total aflatoxins)	EU: Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 [36]
Aflatoxin M1	Milk & milk products	0.050	0.500	EU: Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 [36]
Deoxynivalenol (DON)	Unprocessed cereals	250–1,750	1,000	EU: Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 [36]
Zearalenone (ZEN)	Unprocessed cereals	50–400	Not specified	EU: Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 [36]
Fumonisins (B1+B2)	Unprocessed maize	800–4,000	2,000–4,000 (B1+B2+B3)	EU: Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 [36]
Ochratoxin A	Cereals & products	2.0–80.0	Not specified	EU: Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 [36]

Materials and Reagents

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and reagents required for implementing the EMR-based SPE workflow for multiclass mycotoxin analysis.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for EMR-Based Mycotoxin Analysis

Item	Function/Application	Specification Notes
EMR-Lipid SPE Cartridges	Selective removal of phospholipids and other matrix components	60 mg/3 mL or 150 mg/6 mL depending on sample load [39]
LC-MS Grade Acetonitrile	Extraction solvent and mobile phase component	Low UV absorbance, high purity for minimal background interference
LC-MS Grade Methanol	SPE conditioning and washing solvent	High purity to prevent contamination
Ammonium Hydroxide	pH adjustment for extraction solvents	LC-MS grade, typically 25% solution
Ammonium Acetate/Formate	Mobile phase additives for LC-MS analysis	Volatile salts compatible with mass spectrometry
Mycotoxin Reference Standards	Method calibration and quality control	Certified reference materials for target analytes
Internal Standard Mixture	Quantification and process monitoring	Stable isotope-labeled mycotoxins (e.g., 13C, 15N)

Experimental Protocol

Sample Preparation and Extraction

• Sample Homogenization: Grind representative food or feed samples to pass through a 1-mm sieve. Mix thoroughly to ensure homogeneity.

• Weighing: Precisely weigh 2.0 ± 0.05 g of homogenized sample into a 50 mL centrifuge tube.

• Internal Standard Addition: Add appropriate stable isotope-labeled internal standards (e.g., 13C-labeled mycotoxins) to correct for matrix effects and recovery losses.

• Extraction: Add 10 mL of extraction solvent (acetonitrile:water:acetic acid, 79:20:1, v/v/v). Shake vigorously for 60 minutes on a horizontal shaker or vortex mixer.

• Centrifugation: Centrifuge at 4,000 × g for 10 minutes at room temperature to separate solid particulates.

• Dilution: Transfer 1 mL of the supernatant to a clean tube and dilute with 1 mL of acidified water (1% acetic acid) to ensure appropriate solvent strength for EMR cartridge loading.

EMR Solid-Phase Extraction Cleanup

• Cartridge Conditioning: Condition the EMR-Lipid cartridge (60 mg/3 mL) with 3 mL of acetonitrile followed by 3 mL of acidified water (1% acetic acid). Do not allow the sorbent to dry completely.

• Sample Loading: Load the entire diluted extract (approximately 2 mL) onto the conditioned EMR cartridge at a flow rate of 1-2 drops per second (approximately 1 mL/min).

• Washing: Wash the cartridge with 3 mL of a mixture of acidified water (1% acetic acid) and acetonitrile (90:10, v/v) to remove polar matrix interferences without eluting target mycotoxins.

• Drying: Apply full vacuum (10-15 in. Hg) for 5-10 minutes to completely dry the sorbent bed. This step is critical for effective phospholipid removal.

• Elution: Elute the target mycotoxins with 3 mL of acetonitrile containing 2% ammonium hydroxide into a clean collection tube. Collect the entire eluate.

• Evaporation and Reconstitution: Evaporate the eluate to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen at 40°C. Reconstitute the residue in 500 µL of initial mobile phase (typically 90:10 water:acetonitrile with 5 mM ammonium bicarbonate, pH 8.0). Vortex for 30 seconds and transfer to an autosampler vial for LC-MS analysis.

LC-MS Analysis Conditions

The following workflow diagram illustrates the complete analytical process from sample preparation to final analysis:

LC-MS Instrument Conditions:

• HPLC System: UHPLC capable of binary gradient mixing
• Column: Gemini NX C18, 100 × 2.0 mm, 3 µm particle size or equivalent
• Column Temperature: 40°C
• Mobile Phase A: 5 mM ammonium bicarbonate in water, pH 8.0
• Mobile Phase B: Acetonitrile
• Gradient Program:
  • 0-1 min: 10% B
  • 1-8 min: 10-95% B (linear gradient)
  • 8-10 min: 95% B (hold)
  • 10-11 min: 95-10% B
  • 11-15 min: 10% B (re-equilibration)
• Flow Rate: 0.4 mL/min
• Injection Volume: 5-10 µL
• Mass Spectrometer: Triple quadrupole MS with electrospray ionization (ESI)
• Ionization Mode: Positive and negative polarity switching or multiple runs
• Source Parameters:
  • ESI Voltage: ±3500 V
  • Source Temperature: 400°C
  • Nebulizer Gas: 40 psi
  • Drying Gas: 10 L/min

Results and Discussion

Method Performance Characteristics

The EMR-based SPE methodology provides exceptional cleanup efficiency for complex food and feed matrices. The protocol achieves consistent mycotoxin recoveries ranging from 85-105% for most target analytes, with relative standard deviations (RSD) below 10% across multiple batches and operators. The method demonstrates excellent linearity (R² > 0.995) across calibration ranges spanning 2-3 orders of magnitude, with limits of quantification (LOQ) comfortably below the most stringent regulatory limits established by EU and FDA regulations [36].

Matrix effects, a significant challenge in LC-MS analysis of complex samples, are substantially reduced to typically less than 15% signal suppression/enhancement compared to often exceeding 50% in methods without effective cleanup. This enhancement is attributable to the selective removal of phospholipids and other matrix components that co-elute with target analytes and interfere with ionization efficiency [39]. The ability to inject 100% organic, basified injection solvents directly into the LC-MS system without evaporation and reconstitution represents a significant workflow optimization, reducing sample preparation time by approximately 50% compared to traditional methods [40].

Application to Real-World Samples

When applied to the analysis of 2025 harvest samples, this methodology effectively quantifies the multi-mycotoxin contamination patterns identified in global surveys. The method successfully handles the challenging matrix components present in corn silage, barley, and wheat samples, providing accurate quantification of Fusarium mycotoxins (including deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, T-2 and HT-2 toxins) alongside emerging threats such as the aflatoxin B1 contamination detected in European corn samples [37]. The robustness of the EMR cleanup is particularly valuable for analyzing forage samples, which show an 88% contamination rate with diverse mycotoxin profiles including challenging Penicillium mycotoxins [37].

The streamlined workflow enables laboratories to maintain high throughput while generating the reliable data necessary for risk assessment and regulatory compliance. The method's reproducibility across different matrices and concentration levels makes it particularly suitable for surveillance programs and diagnostic laboratories requiring consistent performance across diverse sample types.

Troubleshooting and Optimization

Common Challenges and Solutions

• Poor Recovery of Polar Mycotoxins: For highly polar mycotoxins (e.g., deoxynivalenol, fumonisins), optimize the washing step by reducing organic solvent content to 5-10% and consider using a mixed-mode cation exchange sorbent for improved retention [39].

• Matrix Effects Persisting After Cleanup: Increase the volume of the acidified water wash or incorporate an additional wash with 3 mL of 5 mM ammonium acetate buffer (pH 4.5) to remove more polar matrix interferences.

• Inconsistent Recovery Between Batches: Ensure complete drying of the EMR sorbent bed after washing and before elution. Inconsistent drying is a common source of variability in phospholipid removal efficiency.

• Carryover Between Injections: Implement a strong wash step in the autosampler method using a high organic solvent mixture (e.g., 90:10 isopropanol:acetonitrile) to prevent carryover of late-eluting compounds.

The development of LC columns with increased pH stability has significantly advanced direct injection approaches for SPE eluates, enabling injection of high-pH extracts that would damage traditional reversed-phase columns [40]. This technological innovation, combined with EMR sample preparation, represents a substantial step forward in streamlining multiclass mycotoxin analysis while maintaining data quality and instrument integrity.

The EMR-based SPE workflow presented in this application note provides a robust, efficient solution for multiclass mycotoxin analysis in complex food and feed matrices. The method effectively addresses key analytical challenges including matrix effects, throughput requirements, and the need for comprehensive analyte coverage. By simplifying sample preparation while enhancing cleanup efficiency, this approach enables laboratories to respond effectively to the evolving mycotoxin threat landscape characterized by rising contamination levels and increasing regulatory scrutiny. The integration of this optimized methodology into routine monitoring programs supports the agricultural and food industries in maintaining product safety and quality in the face of emerging mycotoxin risks amplified by changing climatic conditions.

The accurate quantification of steroid hormones in biological matrices like serum and urine is a cornerstone of clinical diagnostics and bioanalysis, essential for investigating stress responses, endocrine disorders, and reproductive health [41]. The analysis of these biomarkers is challenging due to their low physiological concentrations and the complexity of biological matrices [42]. Solid-phase extraction (SPE) and supported liquid extraction (SLE) have emerged as two principal sample preparation techniques to address these challenges prior to liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis [43] [44]. This application note, framed within broader research on solid-phase extraction for LC-MS, provides a detailed comparison of these techniques. It includes structured quantitative data and validated protocols to guide researchers and drug development professionals in selecting and implementing the optimal method for their specific analytical requirements.

Technique Comparison: SPE vs. SLE

Supported Liquid Extraction (SLE) is a modern adaptation of traditional liquid-liquid extraction (LLE). In SLE, an aqueous sample is dispersed as small droplets onto a high-surface-area diatomaceous earth support. The entire sample remains on the SLE column, and analytes are eluted with a water-immiscible solvent. Compounds of interest partition into the organic phase, while salts, phospholipids, and other impurities remain on the column. The protocol is simple, involving load, wait, and elute steps, and is amenable to automation [43].

Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) is a more involved technique where the sample is loaded onto a cartridge containing a solid sorbent. Analytes of interest are retained via mechanisms such as hydrophobic interaction or ion exchange, while the sample matrix is discarded. A key advantage of SPE is the ability to perform targeted wash steps with aqueous and organic solvents to remove interfering compounds. The retained analytes are then selectively eluted, using an organic solvent for hydrophobic compounds or an acid/base for ionized compounds, leading to a higher degree of sample cleanup [43] [45].

The choice between SLE and SPE depends on the chemical properties of the target steroids and the required cleanliness of the final extract. Table 1 summarizes the fundamental characteristics of each technique.

Table 1: Fundamental Comparison of SLE and SPE Techniques

Feature	Supported Liquid Extraction (SLE)	Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE)
Principle	Liquid-liquid partitioning on a solid support [43]	Retention on a solid sorbent with selective elution [43] [45]
Mechanism	Partitioning into organic solvent [43]	Hydrophobic, ion-exchange, mixed-mode interactions [43] [45]
Key Steps	Load, wait, elute [43]	Condition, load, wash, elute [43] [45]
Sample Cleanup	Moderate; removes salts and phospholipids [43]	High; wash steps remove a wider range of interferences [43]
Best For	Non-polar to moderately polar, neutral compounds [43]	Hydrophilic, ionic, zwitterionic compounds; complex matrices [43]

Table 2 provides a direct, data-driven comparison of the two techniques for steroid analysis, highlighting their performance in key analytical figures of merit.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison of SLE and SPE for Steroid Analysis

Analytical Parameter	Supported Liquid Extraction (SLE)	Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE)
Recovery (Typical for Steroids)	~80-120% for a wide panel of steroids in serum/plasma [41]	High recovery achieved for a broad steroid panel, often enhanced with optimized sorbents [42]
Matrix Effect	Can be moderate; phospholipids and ion suppression possible [43]	Can be significantly reduced through selective wash steps (e.g., using Oasis PRiME HLB) [45] [42]
Ionization Efficiency	Good for neutral, non-polar steroids [43]	Can be enhanced for estrogens via derivatization combined with SPE [42]
Limit of Quantification (LOQ)	Sub-ng/mL to low ng/mL levels achievable in serum [41]	pg/mL levels achievable for certain steroids in plasma with narrow-bore LC and SPE [42]
Carryover Risk	Generally low with proper elution	Managed with thorough washing and elution steps [45]

Experimental Protocols

Detailed Protocol: SPE for Comprehensive Steroid Profiling in Plasma

This protocol, adapted from recent research, details a robust method for quantifying endogenous and exogenous steroids in human plasma using a combination of protein precipitation and SPE in a 96-well plate format, achieving pg/mL-level sensitivity [42].

Research Reagent Solutions:

Table 3: Essential Materials for SPE Protocol

Item	Function/Description
Oasis PRiME HLB 96-well Plate (1 cc/30 mg)	Polymeric sorbent for efficient extraction of acids, bases, and neutrals with built-in phospholipid removal [42].
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards (e.g., E1-13C6, P-d9)	Correct for analyte loss during preparation and matrix effects during MS analysis [42].
Methanol (LC-MS Grade)	Used for protein precipitation, SPE wash, and elution [42].
Zinc Sulfate (ZnSOâ‚„) Solution (50 mg/mL in Hâ‚‚O)	Co-precipitant used with methanol for efficient protein removal [42].
1,2-Dimethylimidazole-5-sulfonyl chloride (DMIS)	Derivatization reagent for estrogens to enhance MS sensitivity and specificity [42].
Sodium Carbonate-Bicarbonate Buffer (50 mM, pH 10.5)	Provides optimal alkaline pH for the DMIS derivatization reaction [42].

Workflow Diagram:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Protein Precipitation: Add 1 mL of ice-cold methanol / ZnSOâ‚„ solution (80/20, v/v) containing a mixture of stable isotope-labeled internal standards to 500 µL of thawed plasma in a 2 mL polypropylene tube. Vortex for 15 seconds and incubate on ice for 15 minutes [42].
• Centrifugation: Centrifuge the sample at 15,000 × g for 10 minutes at 4°C to pellet the precipitated proteins [42].
• SPE Load: Transfer the supernatant to an Oasis PRiME HLB 96-well plate pre-conditioned as per manufacturer's instructions. Load the supernatant under positive pressure (3-6 psi) [42].
• SPE Wash: Wash the sorbent bed with 1 mL of ice-cold 50% methanol in water (v/v) to remove remaining salts and polar impurities [42].
• SPE Elution: Dry the cartridge under positive pressure (25 psi) for 5 minutes. Elute the analytes with 2 × 300 µL of methanol (at ambient temperature) into a 96-well collection plate [42].
• Evaporation: Evaporate the eluate to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen for approximately 8 hours using an evaporator [42].
• Derivatization (for Estrogens): Reconstitute the dry residue by adding 35 µL of sodium carbonate-bicarbonate buffer (50 mM, pH 10.5) and 15 µL of DMIS reagent (1 mg/mL in acetone). Seal the plate immediately and incubate at 25°C with shaking (1400 rpm) for 15 minutes [42].
• Analysis: Centrifuge the plate and place it in a thermostated autosampler (4°C) for LC-MS/MS analysis [42].

Detailed Protocol: SLE for Steroid Analysis in Serum

This protocol outlines a generic SLE method suitable for extracting a broad panel of steroid hormones from serum.

Workflow Diagram:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Sample Pretreatment: Thaw the serum sample on ice. Dilute the sample (e.g., 500 µL) with water or a buffer to reduce viscosity. Adjust the pH as needed to ensure target steroids are in their neutral form for optimal partitioning [43].
• SLE Load: Load the pretreated aqueous sample onto the SLE column or plate.
• Equilibration: Allow the sample to absorb fully into the diatomaceous earth support. A typical equilibration time is 15-30 minutes to ensure proper partitioning [43].
• Elution: Elute the analytes of interest by passing a water-immiscible organic solvent (e.g., methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), ethyl acetate, or a mixture) through the SLE support. The compounds partition into the organic phase, while hydrophilic interferences remain [43] [1].
• Post-Elution Processing: Collect the eluate and evaporate it to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen or in a centrifugal evaporator.
• Reconstitution: Reconstitute the dry extract in an appropriate volume of a 50:50 methanol:water solution (or another LC-MS compatible solvent) [1].
• Analysis: Vortex the reconstituted sample and transfer it to an autosampler vial for LC-MS/MS analysis.

Both SPE and SLE are highly effective for purifying steroid hormones from complex biological fluids for LC-MS analysis. SLE offers a simple, robust, and automatable method well-suited for non-polar to moderately polar steroids, providing excellent recovery with minimal steps [43]. In contrast, SPE provides superior selectivity and cleanup power, which is critical for analyzing hydrophilic or ionic compounds, achieving lower limits of quantification, and managing complex matrix effects [43] [42]. The choice between them should be guided by the specific chemical properties of the analyte panel, the required sensitivity, and the complexity of the sample matrix.

The demand for high-throughput biomonitoring, which involves the large-scale analysis of environmental chemicals in biological specimens, presents significant laboratory challenges for processing a statistically significant number of samples [46]. Online Solid-Phase Extraction coupled with Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (Online SPE-LC-MS/MS) addresses this need by integrating sample purification, concentration, and analysis into a single, automated system [46]. This integration is crucial for minimizing manual handling, increasing throughput, and improving the accuracy and precision of trace-level analysis [46]. Within the broader context of research on solid-phase extraction for LC-MS, online SPE represents a pivotal advancement toward achieving fully automated, rugged, and high-performance bioanalytical workflows for large-scale biomonitoring studies.

This application note provides a detailed protocol and experimental data for an automated online SPE-LC-MS/MS method, demonstrating its application in the quantitative analysis of specific analytes in human serum. The methodology emphasizes the seamless integration of extraction and analysis, which is fundamental to efficient biomonitoring.

Experimental Design and Workflow

The core of the online SPE-LC-MS/MS approach is the automation of the entire sample preparation and analysis sequence. The workflow is designed to process samples directly from a biological matrix, such as serum, to a final quantitative result with minimal manual intervention. A robotic liquid handling system prepares the sample plate, performing tasks like dilution and internal standard addition [47]. The prepared plate is then placed in an autosampler, which injects the sample onto the online SPE cartridge. Here, the analytes are trapped and concentrated while interfering compounds are washed to waste. Following this extraction and clean-up, the analytes are eluted from the SPE cartridge and transferred directly to the LC analytical column for chromatographic separation, finally entering the MS/MS system for detection and quantification [46]. This column-switching technique is the "nuts-and-bolts" of a rugged, automated method [46].

Automated Workflow Diagram

The following diagram illustrates the integrated, automated workflow for high-throughput biomonitoring:

Automated SPE-LC-MS/MS Workflow

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Online SPE and LC-MS/MS Conditions

This protocol is adapted from validated methods for the analysis of small molecules in serum [47] [46].

• Sample Preparation: Thaw frozen human serum samples on ice. Dilute 100 µL of serum with an equal volume of a suitable buffer (e.g., 4% phosphoric acid) or water containing an appropriate internal standard (e.g., CBD-d3 for cannabinoid analysis) [47] [48]. Vortex mix thoroughly and load into a 96-well plate compatible with the autosampler.
• Online SPE Procedure:
  • SPE Cartridge: Use a reversed-phase cartridge (e.g., C18, 10 x 2.0 mm).
  • Conditioning: The system automatically conditions the SPE cartridge with methanol or acetonitrile followed by water or a weak aqueous buffer at a flow rate of 1-2 mL/min [48].
  • Sample Loading: Load 10-50 µL of the prepared sample onto the SPE cartridge using a loading pump with a weak aqueous mobile phase (e.g., 2 mM ammonium acetate in water) at 1 mL/min. Divert the flow to waste during this step.
  • Washing: Wash the cartridge with 1-2 mL of a weak aqueous/organic solvent (e.g., 5% methanol) to remove interfering compounds [48].
  • Elution and Transfer: Elute the trapped analytes from the SPE cartridge onto the analytical column using a strong organic solvent (e.g., methanol or acetonitrile) from the analytical pump. This is achieved via a switching valve that directs the elution stream to the analytical column for separation.
• LC Conditions:
  • Analytical Column: Reversed-phase (e.g., C18, 50 x 2.1 mm, 1.8 µm).
  • Mobile Phase A: Water with 0.1% formic acid.
  • Mobile Phase B: Acetonitrile or Methanol with 0.1% formic acid.
  • Gradient: 5% B to 95% B over 3-5 minutes, hold at 95% B for 1 minute, re-equilibrate at 5% B.
  • Flow Rate: 0.4 mL/min.
  • Column Temperature: 40°C.
• MS/MS Conditions:
  • Ionization: Electrospray Ionization (ESI) in positive or negative mode.
  • Detection: Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM).
  • Source Temperature: 150°C.
  • Desolvation Temperature: 500°C.
  • Cone Gas Flow: 150 L/hr.
  • Desolvation Gas Flow: 1000 L/hr.

Key Experiment: Method Comparison and Validation

A pivotal experiment demonstrating the robustness of automation compared a fully automated sample preparation method for serum (covering steps like solvent dispensing, mixing, centrifugation, and supernatant transfer) against a manual protocol for the quantification of Cannabidiol (CBD) and its metabolite, 7-hydroxy-CBD [47]. The study was validated according to European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines, and the results are summarized in the tables below [47].

Table 1: Intraday Precision and Accuracy for Manual vs. Automated Methods [47]

Analyte	Method	Spiked Conc. (ng/mL)	Measured Conc. (ng/mL)	Precision (%)	Accuracy (%)
CBD	Manual	2.5 (LOQ)	2.8 ± 0.1	4.5	111.8
		35 (QC Low)	35.3 ± 1.0	2.7	100.8
		350 (QC Med)	327.6 ± 18.4	5.6	93.6
	Automated	2.5 (LOQ)	2.6 ± 0.3	11.5	105.3
		35 (QC Low)	30.8 ± 1.0	3.4	87.9
		350 (QC Med)	342.7 ± 8.4	2.5	97.9
7-Hydroxy-CBD	Manual	5 (LOQ)	4.8 ± 0.3	6.5	95.4
		17.5 (QC Low)	18.4 ± 0.4	2.0	105.1
		175 (QC Med)	164.8 ± 4.2	2.6	94.2
	Automated	5 (LOQ)	4.6 ± 0.2	4.3	91.9
		17.5 (QC Low)	17.1 ± 0.8	4.9	97.6
		175 (QC Med)	173.3 ± 4.2	2.4	99.0

Table 2: Interday Precision and Accuracy for Manual vs. Automated Methods [47]

Analyte	Method	Spiked Conc. (ng/mL)	Measured Conc. (ng/mL)	Precision (%)	Accuracy (%)
CBD	Manual	2.5 (LOQ)	2.8 ± 0.2	6.3	110.5
		35 (QC Low)	34.2 ± 2.3	6.6	97.8
		350 (QC Med)	336.4 ± 21.0	6.2	96.1
	Automated	2.5 (LOQ)	2.7 ± 0.2	8.4	109.3
		35 (QC Low)	34.3 ± 1.3	3.9	98.0
		350 (QC Med)	343.5 ± 16.6	4.8	98.1
7-Hydroxy-CBD	Manual	5 (LOQ)	4.6 ± 0.4	7.8	92.7
		17.5 (QC Low)	17.5 ± 1.4	7.9	100.1
		175 (QC Med)	165.4 ± 11.9	7.2	94.5
	Automated	5 (LOQ)	4.8 ± 0.3	6.5	96.5
		17.5 (QC Low)	17.3 ± 1.4	8.1	98.9
		175 (QC Med)	171.6 ± 8.2	4.8	98.1

The data from this experiment demonstrates that the automated method performs with precision and accuracy comparable to the manual method, meeting regulatory acceptance criteria [47]. The automated protocol showed excellent linearity in calibration curves and strong agreement with the manual method, as confirmed by Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots [47].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Materials and Reagents for Online SPE-LC-MS/MS

Item	Function / Application
HyperSep or SOLA SPE Cartridges (C18, Mixed-Mode)	Gold-standard sorbents for selective retention of analytes from complex biological matrices during the online SPE clean-up step [48].
LC-MS/MS Grade Solvents (Acetonitrile, Methanol, Water)	Used in mobile phases and sample preparation to minimize background noise and ion suppression, ensuring high-sensitivity detection [48].
Ammonium Acetate / Formic Acid	Common mobile phase additives that promote efficient ionization in the mass spectrometer, improving signal response [48].
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Correct for variability in sample preparation and ionization efficiency, crucial for achieving accurate quantification [47].
96-Well Plates	Standardized format for high-throughput sample processing in automated liquid handlers and autosamplers [47] [48].
(4-Aminobut-2-yn-1-yl)dimethylamine	(4-Aminobut-2-yn-1-yl)dimethylamine|CAS 53913-95-4
4-Methyl-1,3-benzoxazole-2-thiol	4-Methyl-1,3-benzoxazole-2-thiol|CAS 93794-44-6

Technical Specifications and System Configuration

Implementing a robust online SPE-LC-MS/MS system requires specific technical configurations to handle the pressures and fluidic switching of the two-pump system.

System Configuration Diagram

The fluidic path and valve switching are critical for successful method operation.

Online SPE System Configuration

Online SPE-LC-MS/MS represents a significant leap forward in automating extraction for high-throughput biomonitoring. By integrating solid-phase extraction directly with the liquid chromatograph and mass spectrometer, this approach minimizes manual sample handling, thereby reducing errors and inter-operator variability [47] [46]. The provided experimental data and protocols demonstrate that automated workflows can meet rigorous regulatory standards for precision and accuracy while offering superior throughput and operational efficiency [47]. For drug development professionals and researchers, the adoption of online SPE-LC-MS/MS is a strategic step toward more standardized, robust, and scalable biomonitoring protocols.

SPE Troubleshooting: Solving Common Problems of Low Recovery, Reproducibility, and Cleanup

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) is a critical sample preparation technique for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), enabling cleaner extracts, reduced matrix effects, and enhanced detection sensitivity. However, low analyte recovery remains a significant challenge that can compromise quantification accuracy, lead to poor reproducibility, and invalidate method validation. This application note, framed within broader research on SPE for LC-MS, provides a detailed guide for researchers and drug development professionals to diagnose and resolve low recovery by optimizing eluent strength, pH, and volume. Recovery refers to the proportion of the target analyte successfully extracted and detected from the original sample, with a high recovery rate (typically >70%) often required for method validation [49].

Systematic Diagnosis of Low Recovery

A structured approach to diagnosing recovery problems helps pinpoint the exact stage where analyte loss occurs.

Diagnostic Workflow

The following diagram outlines a step-by-step strategy to track analyte loss during the SPE process, guiding you to the most likely cause and appropriate solution.

Diagnostic Experimental Protocol

To implement the diagnostic workflow, follow this targeted experimental procedure. Using an ideal sample (analyte in solution without matrix) simplifies the initial investigation [50].

• Step 1: Preparation of Test Solution

  • Prepare a standard solution of your target analyte in a suitable solvent.
  • Optional but recommended: Spike the analyte into a blank matrix and process it alongside the ideal sample to identify matrix-specific effects.

• Step 2: Sequential Fraction Collection and Analysis

  • Condition and equilibrate the SPE cartridge as per your method.
  • Load the test sample and collect the load flow-through fraction.
  • Perform the wash step(s), collecting each wash fraction separately.
  • Perform the elution step, collecting the elution fraction.
  • If recovery remains low, try to elute the cartridge again with a stronger solvent (e.g., 100% organic or a different pH) to see if analyte is still retained.

• Step 3: Data Analysis

  • Analyze all collected fractions (load flow-through, washes, primary elution, and strong solvent elution) via LC-MS.
  • Quantify the analyte content in each fraction. The fraction where the analyte is primarily found reveals the source of the problem [50]:
    • Analyte in load flow-through: Indicates breakthrough during loading.
    • Analyte in wash fractions: Indicates the wash solvent is too strong.
    • Analyte only in strong solvent elution: Indicates the primary elution solvent is too weak.

Optimization of Critical Parameters

Once the source of analyte loss is identified, systematic optimization of key parameters is essential.

Optimizing Eluent Strength and Composition

The elution solvent must be strong enough to disrupt analyte-sorbent interactions. Strength optimization is a balance between achieving complete recovery and minimizing co-elution of interferences.

Experimental Protocol for Eluent Strength Optimization

• Objective: Determine the minimal organic solvent composition (%) or buffer concentration required for quantitative elution.
• Procedure:
  • Retain the analyte on the SPE sorbent.
  • Elute with a series of solvents of increasing strength (e.g., 50%, 70%, 90%, 100% organic solvent). Use a constant elution volume for all tests.
  • For ion-exchange protocols, elute with buffers of increasing ionic strength (e.g., 10 mM, 50 mM, 100 mM, 500 mM salt) or a progressively stronger pH that neutralizes the analyte or sorbent charge.
  • Analyze all eluents and plot the recovery against eluent strength.
• Success Criterion: Choose the eluent strength that provides >85% recovery without eluting an unacceptable level of interferences [51].

Optimizing pH for Ionizable Compounds

For ionizable analytes, pH control is paramount for both retention and elution. The general rule is to adjust the pH to ensure the analyte is uncharged for hydrophobic retention, and charged for ion-exchange retention [51] [49].

Experimental Protocol for pH Optimization

• Objective: Identify the optimal pH for sample loading, washing, and elution to maximize recovery.
• Procedure:
  • Retention (Loading/Washing): For ion-exchange SPE, adjust the sample pH so that the analyte and the sorbent functional group are oppositely charged. For weak ion-exchange sorbents, ensure the pH keeps the sorbent functional group ionized [51].
  • Elution: For ion-exchange SPE, adjust the elution solvent pH to neutralize the charge on either the analyte or the sorbent functional group. For reversed-phase SPE with ionizable analytes, adjust the elution solvent pH to neutralize the analyte, making it more hydrophobic and easier to elute.
  • Test different pH values in discrete steps, analyzing recovery for each.
• Success Criterion: Analyte is quantitatively retained during load/wash and quantitatively eluted during the elution step.

Optimizing Eluent Volume and Soak Time

Incomplete elution can occur even with a strong solvent if the volume is insufficient or contact time is too short. Soak steps are particularly critical for ion-exchange sorbents due to slower, point-to-point interaction kinetics [51].

Experimental Protocol for Volume and Soak Time

• Objective: Establish the minimal elution volume and the need for a soak period.
• Procedure:
  • With a fixed, strong elution solvent, perform multiple sequential elutions with small volumes (e.g., 2 x 500 µL instead of 1 x 1 mL). Analyze each fraction to see if the analyte elutes in the first volume.
  • To test soak time, add the elution solvent and allow it to reside in the sorbent bed for varying durations (e.g., 0 s, 30 s, 1 min, 2 min) before applying pressure/vacuum.
• Success Criterion: >95% of the analyte is recovered in the first elution volume, potentially with a minimal soak time (30 s to several minutes) [51].

Key Data and Optimization Parameters

Table 1: Summary of Critical SPE Parameters for Recovery Optimization

Parameter	Common Issue	Optimization Strategy	Target/Outcome
Eluent Strength	Solvent too weak for complete elution [49].	Titrate organic solvent % or ionic strength in discrete steps [51].	Minimal strength for >85% recovery without excessive co-elution of interferences [51].
pH Control	pH mismatch with analyte ionization state, preventing retention or elution [49].	Adjust sample/eluent pH to ensure analyte is charged for ion-exchange retention and uncharged for elution. The opposite is often true for reversed-phase [51] [49].	pKa ± 1.5-2 units to ensure >99% of analyte is in the desired form.
Eluent Volume	Volume is insufficient for complete analyte desorption [49].	Use multiple small fractions to find the minimal quantitative elution volume.	>95% recovery in the first 1-2 column volumes of eluent.
Soak Time	No static residence time for elution solvent, leading to inefficient elution [51].	Incorporate a soak step (30 s to several minutes) after adding elution solvent [51].	Improved and more reproducible recovery, especially for ion-exchange and mixed-mode sorbents.
Sorbent Selectivity	Inappropriate sorbent chemistry for the analyte [49].	Match sorbent to analyte: Reversed-phase (C18) for hydrophobics, HILIC for polars, Ion-Exchange for ionizables [51] [49].	Strong, specific interaction with the analyte for high selectivity and recovery.

Case Study: Recovery Improvement for a Basic Drug

A bioanalytical laboratory observed poor recovery (~40%) of a basic pharmaceutical compound from plasma using a reversed-phase SPE method [49].

• Investigation: The diagnostic workflow revealed analyte in the wash fractions and poor elution efficiency. The root cause was a pH mismatch: the sample was not adjusted, leaving the basic drug ionized, which weakened its retention on the reversed-phase sorbent. Furthermore, the wash solvent (20% methanol) was too strong for this weakly retained analyte.
• Solution Implemented:
  • Adjusted the sample to pH 9 to ensure the basic drug was in its neutral form for strong hydrophobic retention.
  • Replaced the methanolic wash with an aqueous buffer wash at pH 9.
  • Used 5% NHâ‚„OH in methanol as the elution solvent to ionize the drug and disrupt any residual silanol interactions, ensuring complete elution.
• Result: Recovery improved to >85% with excellent reproducibility [49].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for SPE Method Development and Optimization

Reagent / Material	Function / Purpose
Mixed-Mode Sorbents (e.g., MCX, MAX, HLB)	Provide combined hydrophobic and ion-exchange interactions for highly selective retention of complex analytes. The dominant mechanism can be "flipped" using pH and solvent strength [51] [49].
Enhanced Matrix Removal (EMR-Lipid) Sorbent	A specialized sorbent for selectively retaining lipid molecules based on size exclusion and hydrophobic interaction. Can be used for both lipid removal and targeted lipid extraction [52].
Low-Binding Plasticware / Silanized Glassware	Minimizes non-specific adsorption of hydrophobic or sticky analytes to container surfaces, a common cause of low recovery [49].
Ammonium Hydroxide / Formic Acid	Common volatile additives for adjusting the pH of elution solvents in a manner compatible with LC-MS. NHâ‚„OH is used for eluting basic compounds; formic acid for acidic compounds [49].
Carrier Proteins (e.g., BSA) / Surfactants (e.g., 0.01% Tween 20)	Added to sample or solvent to saturate non-specific binding sites, particularly in biological samples, thereby improving recovery of the target analyte [49].

Integrated SPE Workflow Diagram

The overall SPE process, highlighting critical steps for recovery, is summarized below.

Achieving high analyte recovery in SPE is foundational for robust and quantitative LC-MS analysis. Low recovery is frequently a direct consequence of suboptimal eluent strength, pH, or volume. By adopting a systematic diagnostic approach to track analyte loss and methodically optimizing these critical parameters, researchers can significantly improve recovery, reproducibility, and the overall quality of their bioanalytical data. The strategies and protocols outlined here provide a clear pathway for troubleshooting and refining SPE methods within advanced drug development workflows.

In the realm of solid phase extraction (SPE) for LC-MS sample preparation, managing flow rate is a critical parameter that directly impacts the success of analytical outcomes. Flow rate variations during the SPE process can significantly alter extraction efficiency, analyte recovery, and ultimately, the reliability of subsequent LC-MS analysis. Within the broader context of SPE method development for complex matrices such as biological and environmental samples, understanding and controlling flow rate is paramount for achieving reproducible, high-quality results that meet rigorous validation standards. This application note provides a comprehensive examination of flow rate management strategies, integrating theoretical principles with practical protocols to assist researchers in optimizing this crucial parameter in their SPE workflows.

Theoretical Foundations of Flow Rate in SPE

Fundamental Principles of Flow in Extraction Chemistry

In solid phase extraction, flow rate governs the contact time between analytes in the sample solution and the functional groups on the sorbent surface. This interaction time directly influences the kinetics of the retention and elution processes, which are governed by multiple mechanisms including van der Waals forces, dipole-dipole interactions, hydrogen bonding, and electrostatic attractions [53].

The flow rate during SPE must be optimized to balance two competing factors: (1) sufficient interaction time for effective analyte retention and (2) practical processing time for high-throughput applications. For nonpolar SPE phases utilizing C18, C8, or similar chemistries, proper flow rates ensure complete analyte interaction with the hydrophobic functional groups via van der Waals forces. Similarly, for ion-exchange SPE, controlled flow is essential for effective electrostatic interactions between charged analytes and the oppositely charged sorbent surface [53].

Mathematical Relationships in Flow Dynamics

The fundamental relationship between flow rate and extraction efficiency can be understood through the chromatographic principles that govern SPE. While not identical to analytical chromatography, SPE operates on similar principles where the linear velocity of the mobile phase affects the kinetics of mass transfer between the stationary and mobile phases.

When scaling methods between different systems or column geometries, maintaining consistent linear velocity is essential for preserving extraction performance. The flow rate should be adjusted according to the change in cross-sectional area of the extraction device, which is proportional to the square of the ratio of column diameters [54]:

[ F2 = F1 \times \left( \frac{d{c2}}{d{c1}} \right)^2 ]

Where F₁ and F₂ represent flow rates in the original and new systems, and d{c1} and d{c2} represent the respective column diameters. This relationship becomes particularly important when transferring methods between different SPE formats or when integrating SPE with miniaturized LC systems [55].

Causes and Impacts of Flow Rate Variations

Primary Causes of Flow Rate Inconsistency

Multiple factors can contribute to flow rate variations during SPE procedures, each with distinct underlying mechanisms:

• Sorbent Bed Characteristics: Variations in sorbent particle size, bed density, and channeling effects can create inconsistent flow paths. Smaller particles (e.g., 30-60 µm) typically used in SPE columns create higher backpressure, making flow rates more susceptible to variations in packing consistency [56].

• Sample Matrix Effects: Complex matrices containing particulate matter, proteins, or high viscosity components can partially clog the sorbent bed, increasing resistance to flow. Biological samples such as serum or urine may require pretreatment to remove components that could compromise flow consistency [57] [53].

• Hardware Limitations: Manual SPE systems relying on vacuum pressure or positive pressure may exhibit flow rate drift due to pressure source instability. Automated systems with syringe pumps offer better control but may still experience variations due to seal wear or check valve malfunctions [58].

• Volumetric Overloading: Exceeding the sorbent capacity can compact the bed or create preferential flow paths, leading to irregular flow rates and reduced extraction efficiency [53].

Quantitative Impacts on Analytical Performance

The effect of flow rate variations on SPE performance has been systematically studied across different applications. The table below summarizes key findings from investigations into flow rate impacts:

Table 1: Quantitative Impacts of Flow Rate Variations on SPE Performance

Application Context	Flow Rate Range Studied	Key Performance Impact	Magnitude of Effect	Reference
Reversed-phase Flash Chromatography (C18, 30µm particles)	12-50 mL/min	Resolution between peaks 2 and 3	11% decline between 12 and 30 mL/min; significant change at 50 mL/min	[56]
Automated FA-SPE for antiviral drugs in water	Customized per system	Preconcentration efficiency	Achieved 100-fold preconcentration in 1 hour with optimized flow	[59]
High-throughput SPE for steroidal hormones	Not specified	Overall process efficiency	Automated processing with low sample volume and reduced manual handling	[60]

The data demonstrates that increased flow rates generally correlate with reduced resolution between closely eluting compounds, though the magnitude of this effect varies by application. The relationship between flow rate and recovery is often analyte-dependent, with more hydrophobic compounds showing greater sensitivity to flow variations in reversed-phase SPE [56].

Experimental Protocols for Flow Rate Optimization

Protocol 1: Systematic Flow Rate Calibration for SPE

Purpose: To establish the optimal flow rate range for a specific SPE method and identify performance boundaries.

Materials:

• Oasis HLB SPE cartridges (60 mg, 3 mL) or appropriate sorbent for target analytes
• Standard solution of target analytes in sample matrix
• Appropriate elution solvent based on sorbent chemistry (e.g., methanol for reversed-phase)
• SPE vacuum manifold or positive pressure processor
• calibrated flow measurement device
• LC-MS system for quantification

Procedure:

• Condition the sorbent with 3 mL of methanol followed by 3 mL of water or appropriate starting buffer at a controlled flow rate of 1-2 mL/min.
• Load identical volumes of spiked sample solution (containing known concentrations of analytes) onto separate SPE cartridges.
• Process samples at different flow rates: 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 5 mL/min, maintaining precise control using vacuum regulation or positive pressure.
• Elute analytes with appropriate solvent at consistent flow rate (1 mL/min).
• Analyze eluates using LC-MS and quantify recovery for each flow rate.
• Plot recovery versus flow rate to identify the optimal range where recovery plateaus.
• Repeat experiments with complex samples to evaluate matrix effects on optimal flow rate.

Validation: Calculate intra-day and inter-day precision (RSD%) for recoveries at the optimal flow rate. Values should typically be <15% for bioanalytical applications [57].

Protocol 2: Flow Rate Stability Assessment Under Matrix Loading

Purpose: To evaluate how sample matrix composition affects flow rate stability during SPE.

Materials:

• Selected SPE sorbent based on Protocol 1 results
• Blank matrix (e.g., plasma, urine, surface water)
• Target analytes as standard solutions
• Timing device for flow measurement
• Pressure monitoring device if available

Procedure:

• Prepare samples by spiking analytes into clean matrix and complex matrix (e.g., plasma vs. buffer).
• Condition SPE cartridges as established in Protocol 1.
• Apply samples to cartridges and record the time required for complete passage through the sorbent bed.
• Calculate actual flow rate (volume/time) for each sample type.
• Compare flow rates between clean and complex matrices to quantify matrix-induced flow variations.
• If flow reduction exceeds 20%, implement pretreatment strategies such as dilution, protein precipitation, or filtration.
• Validate optimized method by analyzing replicates (n=6) and calculating precision and accuracy.

Troubleshooting: If matrix effects significantly reduce flow rates, consider alternative sorbents with larger particle sizes (e.g., 60μm vs. 30μm) or device formats with greater capacity for matrix components [53].

Integrated SPE-LC-MS Workflow Considerations

Flow Rate Harmonization Across Systems

When SPE is coupled directly with LC-MS analysis, flow rate compatibility becomes crucial for maintaining system performance. Modern approaches often employ automated online SPE-LC-MS systems that require careful flow rate matching between extraction and chromatographic dimensions [59] [55].

For miniaturized LC systems (capillary-LC and nano-LC), the flow rate requirements during SPE loading may differ significantly from the chromatographic separation flow rates. In such cases, strategies like on-column focusing or column switching allow for using higher flow rates during sample loading and concentration, followed by lower flow rates during separation [55]. This approach maximizes sensitivity while maintaining separation efficiency.

Research Reagent Solutions for Flow-Managed SPE

Table 2: Essential Materials for Flow Rate-Optimized SPE Protocols

Reagent/Supply	Function in Flow Management	Application Notes
Oasis HLB SPE Cartridges (60 mg/3mL)	Mixed-mode reversed-phase/cation exchange sorbent	Ideal for broad-spectrum retention; capacity ~5-15% of sorbent mass [53]
Vacuum Manifold with Precision Regulator	Provides consistent negative pressure for flow control	Enable simultaneous processing of multiple samples at controlled flow rates
Positive Pressure Processor	Alternative to vacuum for more precise flow control	Eliminates flow rate drift common in vacuum systems
pH-adjusted Buffers	Optimize ionization state for ion-exchange mechanisms	Critical for maintaining reproducible retention at different flow rates
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Normalize recovery variations	Essential for correcting flow-induced recovery differences in quantitative LC-MS [57]

Visual Guide to Flow Rate Troubleshooting

The following diagnostic algorithm provides a systematic approach to identifying and resolving flow rate-related issues in SPE procedures:

Figure 1: Flow Rate Troubleshooting Algorithm. This diagnostic pathway guides systematic investigation of flow rate issues in SPE procedures, from initial problem identification through resolution strategies.

Effective management of flow rate variations in solid phase extraction requires both theoretical understanding and practical optimization. Through systematic characterization of flow rate effects and implementation of controlled protocols, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability and reproducibility of SPE as a sample preparation technique for LC-MS analysis. The strategies outlined in this application note provide a framework for developing robust, flow-optimized SPE methods capable of delivering consistent performance across diverse analytical applications and matrix types. As SPE technology continues to evolve toward greater automation and miniaturization, precise flow rate control will remain fundamental to achieving high-quality analytical outcomes.

Cartridge clogging represents a significant bottleneck in solid-phase extraction (SPE) workflows for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), leading to increased backpressure, variable flow rates, reduced analyte recovery, and compromised analytical accuracy [61] [62]. In clinical research and toxicology, where LC-MS/MS is increasingly the technique of choice for small molecule quantification, effective sample preparation is not optional but essential for reliable results [3]. The complex biological matrices encountered in pharmaceutical development—including plasma, serum, whole blood, and tissue homogenates—contain proteins, phospholipids, and cellular debris that readily precipitate or accumulate on SPE sorbents and LC-MS interfaces [61] [3]. This application note details systematic filtration and pre-treatment strategies to prevent cartridge clogging, thereby ensuring robust SPE performance and enhancing the quality of LC-MS data in drug development research.

Mechanisms and Impact of Cartridge Clogging

Primary Clogging Mechanisms in SPE Cartridges

Clogging in SPE cartridges occurs through several interconnected mechanisms, each requiring specific preventive strategies. Understanding these mechanisms is fundamental to developing effective clogging prevention protocols.

Diagram 1: Mechanisms and consequences of SPE cartridge clogging.

The mechanisms illustrated above manifest as specific operational consequences in SPE workflows. Particulate clogging occurs when inadequately filtered samples introduce insoluble materials that accumulate at the head frit of the cartridge, creating a physical barrier to flow [61]. Chemical precipitation arises from poor sample solubility or solvent incompatibilities, where matrix components precipitate within the sorbent bed pores, effectively reducing available surface area and retentive capacity [61]. Matrix fouling involves the gradual accumulation of phospholipids, proteins, and other biological components on sorbent surfaces, which not only reduces extraction efficiency but also introduces significant matrix effects in subsequent LC-MS analysis [3] [62]. Additionally, system-derived debris from deteriorating pump seals, injector rotors, or tubing can migrate to SPE cartridges, contributing to physical blockages [61].

Operational Consequences of Cartridge Clogging

The impact of cartridge clogging extends throughout the analytical workflow, affecting both immediate SPE performance and downstream LC-MS analysis. Flow instability results from increased backpressure, causing erratic flow rates during sample loading and elution steps, which directly impacts extraction reproducibility [61]. Reduced recovery occurs when clogging prevents uniform contact between analytes and sorbent surfaces or creates channeling that bypasses interactive sites, lowering extraction efficiency and method sensitivity [62]. Matrix carryover happens when clogged cartridges fail to effectively remove interfering compounds, leading to ion suppression or enhancement in the mass spectrometer, which compromises quantification accuracy [3]. Process inefficiency arises from failed extractions, repeated experiments, and increased cartridge consumption, substantially raising operational costs and reducing throughput in drug development pipelines [63].

Sample Pre-treatment Protocols by Matrix Type

Effective pre-treatment is matrix-specific and must be optimized according to sample composition. The following protocols provide standardized approaches for common biological matrices encountered in pharmaceutical research.

Table 1: Optimized Sample Pre-treatment Methods for Common Matrices

Sample Matrix	Recommended Pre-treatment	Key Parameters	Clogging Reduction Efficacy
Serum/Plasma	Dilution (1:1) with aqueous buffer or water prior to SPE [48]	pH adjustment critical for proper retention; filter if particulate visible	High - reduces viscosity and protein precipitation
Whole Blood	Dilution with equal volume of water or buffer; centrifugation [48]	Ensure compounds are free in solution; complete lysis critical	Moderate-High - removes cellular components
Urine	Direct application or dilution (1:1) with buffer [48]	Filter if particulates present; adjust ionic strength	High - generally low particulate load
Tissue Homogenates	Pre-extraction with organic solvent; centrifugation/filtration [48]	Homogenize with polar solvent (e.g., methanol); dilute with water	Moderate - high particulate potential
Fats/Oils	Dilution with non-polar solvent (e.g., hexane) [48]	Use non-polar solvents compatible with matrix	Moderate - can dissolve SPE components

Detailed Protocol: Serum and Plasma Pre-treatment

Serum and plasma represent the most common matrices in bioanalytical applications but present significant clogging challenges due to their high protein content and viscosity.

Materials:

• Fresh or properly thawed serum/plasma sample
• Appropriate buffer (e.g., phosphate buffer, pH adjusted as needed)
• 0.2 μm or 0.45 μm syringe filters (cellulose acetate or PVDF)
• Centrifuge tubes
• Refrigerated centrifuge

Procedure:

• Thawing: If frozen, thaw samples completely at room temperature or under refrigeration with gentle mixing to ensure homogeneity.
• Dilution: Transfer 100 μL aliquot of sample to a clean tube. Add 100 μL of appropriate aqueous buffer (typically pH-adjusted to optimize analyte retention) [48]. Mix thoroughly by vortexing for 30 seconds.
• Clarification: Centrifuge the diluted sample at 10,000 × g for 10 minutes at 4°C to pellet any precipitated proteins or insoluble material.
• Filtration: Carefully transfer the supernatant without disturbing the pellet to a syringe equipped with a 0.2 μm filter. Filter into a clean collection tube.
• SPE Application: Apply the filtered, diluted sample to the conditioned SPE cartridge using a controlled flow rate (typically 1-2 mL/minute) [48].

Technical Notes: For methods targeting phospholipid-sensitive applications, consider incorporating specific phospholipid removal media in the pre-treatment workflow [3]. Dilution with buffers containing less than 10% organic solvent is recommended to prevent premature elution from reversed-phase SPE sorbents.

Detailed Protocol: Tissue Homogenate Pre-treatment

Tissue samples present unique challenges due to their heterogeneous composition and high particulate load, requiring extensive pre-treatment to prevent SPE cartridge clogging.

Materials:

• Tissue homogenizer (rotor-stator or bead mill)
• Appropriate extraction solvent (e.g., methanol, acetonitrile, or aqueous buffer)
• Centrifuge and centrifuge tubes
• 0.45 μm filters (nylon or PVDF)
• Protein precipitation reagents (if needed)

Procedure:

• Homogenization: Weigh tissue sample and add 3-5 volumes (w/v) of appropriate extraction solvent. Homogenize using a rotor-stator homogenizer (3 × 30-second bursts with cooling intervals) or bead mill (5-10 minutes at high frequency) [64].
• Solubilization: For complex tissues, add MS-compatible surfactants such as sodium deoxycholate (SDC) or RapiGest to improve extraction efficiency, particularly for membrane-bound analytes [64].
• Centrifugation: Transfer homogenate to centrifuge tubes and spin at 15,000 × g for 15 minutes at 4°C to pellet insoluble cellular debris.
• Protein Precipitation: If high protein content persists, transfer supernatant to clean tube and add 3 volumes of cold acetonitrile or methanol. Vortex vigorously for 1 minute, then centrifuge at 10,000 × g for 10 minutes [3].
• Filtration: Pass the supernatant through a 0.45 μm filter, followed by a 0.2 μm filter for particularly problematic samples.
• SPE Application: Adjust the solvent composition of the filtered extract to be compatible with SPE sorbent chemistry (typically <10% organic for reversed-phase SPE) and apply to conditioned cartridge.

Technical Notes: Maintain consistent homogenization parameters across samples to minimize batch effects. For tissue types with high lipid content, consider incorporating a liquid-liquid extraction step with hexane or methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) to remove lipids that could foul SPE cartridges.

Filtration Techniques for Clogging Prevention

Strategic Filtration Implementation

Filtration represents the most direct physical barrier against particulate-induced clogging in SPE cartridges. A multi-stage filtration strategy provides optimal protection while maintaining analyte recovery.

Table 2: Filtration Methods for Clogging Prevention in SPE Workflows

Filtration Type	Pore Size	Application Stage	Matrix Suitability	Efficiency in Clogging Prevention
Depth Filtration	1-10 μm	Sample pre-treatment	All complex matrices	High - removes larger particulates
Membrane Filtration	0.2-0.45 μm	Pre-SPE clarification	Serum, plasma, tissue extracts	Very High - removes microbial cells, fine precipitates
In-Line Filters	0.5-2 μm	Between sample and SPE cartridge	All matrices	Moderate - protects cartridge but requires maintenance
Centrifugal Filtration	3-100 kDa	Pre-SPE concentration and cleanup	Protein-rich samples	High - removes proteins and macromolecules
Guard Columns	Same as analytical	Post-SPE, pre-LC-MS	All matrices	Moderate - protects LC system only

Diagram 2: Multi-stage filtration workflow for clogging prevention.

Integrated Filtration-SPE Protocol

Combining filtration with SPE in a coordinated workflow maximizes clogging prevention while maintaining analytical sensitivity.

Materials:

• Pre-filters (1-10 μm glass fiber or polypropylene)
• Syringe filters (0.2 μm or 0.45 μm, PVDF or nylon)
• SPE cartridges (appropriate chemistry for analytes)
• Positive pressure manifold or vacuum system
• Appropriate solvents for conditioning and elution

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Begin with pre-treated sample according to matrix-specific protocols (Section 3).
• Depth Filtration: For particularly turbid samples, pass through a 1-10 μm depth filter using gentle vacuum or positive pressure. This step removes the largest particulates that would quickly clog finer filters.
• Membrane Filtration: Transfer the depth-filtered sample to a syringe equipped with a 0.2 μm or 0.45 μm membrane filter. Filter into a clean collection tube.
• SPE Conditioning: Condition the SPE cartridge with appropriate solvent (typically methanol or acetonitrile), followed by equilibration with aqueous solution compatible with the sample matrix [65].
• Sample Application: Apply the filtered sample to the conditioned SPE cartridge at a controlled flow rate (1-2 mL/minute for cartridges, slower for 96-well plates) [48].
• Wash and Elution: Proceed with standard SPE wash and elution steps according to method requirements.

Technical Notes: Never use filters composed of materials that could adsorb target analytes. For hydrophobic compounds, avoid polypropylene filters which may cause nonspecific binding; instead use PVDF or glass fiber. Always pre-rinse filters with a solvent compatible with both the sample and the analytes to minimize losses.

Comprehensive Troubleshooting Guide for Clogged Cartridges

Even with preventive measures, clogging may occasionally occur. Systematic troubleshooting identifies the root cause and implements appropriate corrective actions.

Table 3: Troubleshooting Guide for Clogged SPE Cartridges

Problem Symptom	Potential Causes	Corrective Actions	Preventive Strategies
Gradual pressure increase	Particulate accumulation on frit	Reverse-flush cartridge if possible; replace frit	Improve sample pre-filtration; use in-line pre-filters
Sudden pressure spike	Introduction of insoluble material	Centrifuge sample; replace cartridge	Implement complete mixing during lysis [66]
Variable flow rates	Partial clogging; inconsistent sample	Homogenize sample thoroughly; filter	Standardize sample preparation across batches
Poor recovery after clogging	Sorbent surface fouling	Implement more rigorous clean-up steps	Use guard columns; selective sorbents for matrix
Column degradation after clogging	Irreversible contamination	Replace cartridge; implement rigorous cleanup	Use dedicated cartridges for dirty samples

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Clogging Prevention

Tool/Reagent	Specifications	Primary Function	Application Notes
Syringe Filters	0.2 μm PVDF, 4-25 mm diameter	Particulate removal from samples	Low protein binding; compatible with organic solvents
In-Line Filters	0.5-2 μm, stainless steel housing	Pre-column protection	Reusable; withstand high pressure
Precipitation Reagents	HPLC-grade ACN, MeOH, TCA	Protein removal	Precipitates proteins that could clog sorbents [63]
SPE Sorbents	HLB, C18, mixed-mode	Selective analyte retention	HLB sorbents tolerate precipitated proteins better [62]
Phospholipid Removal Plates	Zirconia-coated silica	Selective phospholipid depletion	Reduces matrix effects and sorbent fouling [3]

Implementation of robust sample filtration and pre-treatment techniques is fundamental to preventing cartridge clogging in SPE workflows for LC-MS analysis. The matrix-specific protocols and integrated filtration strategies detailed in this application note provide researchers with validated methods to maintain consistent flow rates, maximize analyte recovery, and protect valuable instrumentation. Through systematic application of these preventive measures and troubleshooting approaches, drug development professionals can significantly reduce analytical downtime and enhance the reliability of their SPE-based sample preparation methods.

In liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), matrix effects are a pervasive challenge, detrimentally affecting the accuracy, sensitivity, and reproducibility of quantitative analysis. These effects occur when compounds co-eluting with the analyte interfere with the ionization process in the mass spectrometer, leading to either ion suppression or enhancement [67]. The mechanisms behind this can involve less-volatile compounds affecting droplet formation, or competing compounds neutralizing analyte ions [67]. In complex matrices—from biological fluids to environmental samples—a vast array of components can cause these interferences, making selective sample cleanup not merely beneficial, but essential for generating reliable data [68].

This application note, framed within broader thesis research on Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) for LC-MS, provides detailed protocols and strategies to optimize selectivity. By focusing on strategic sample preparation and rigorous assessment techniques, we outline a pathway to superior cleanup and robust quantification.

Assessment: Systematically Evaluating Matrix Effects

Before developing a cleanup strategy, it is crucial to evaluate the nature and extent of matrix effects. Three primary methods facilitate this assessment, each offering complementary insights.

Table 1: Methods for the Assessment of Matrix Effects in LC-MS

Method Name	Description	Output	Key Limitations
Post-Column Infusion [67] [68]	A constant flow of analyte is infused post-column while a blank matrix extract is injected.	Qualitative profile of ionization suppression/enhancement across the chromatographic run time.	Does not provide quantitative data; can be time-consuming for multi-analyte methods.
Post-Extraction Spiking [67] [68]	The signal of an analyte in neat solvent is compared to its signal when spiked into a blank matrix extract after sample preparation.	Quantitative measurement of matrix effect (ME%) at a specific concentration.	Requires a true, analyte-free blank matrix, which is unavailable for endogenous compounds.
Slope Ratio Analysis [68]	The slopes of calibration curves in neat solvent and in matrix are compared over a range of concentrations.	Semi-quantitative evaluation of ME across the calibration range.	Does not require a blank matrix at zero concentration, but needs multiple matrix lots.

The following workflow diagram outlines the decision process for selecting the appropriate assessment and mitigation strategy:

Strategies for Superior Cleanup and Interference Removal

Advanced Sample Preparation Techniques

Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) stands as a cornerstone technique for selective cleanup. Its versatility allows for the selective adsorption of analytes and/or interferences, followed by selective elution [69]. The optimization of SPE parameters is critical for simultaneous multi-analyte recovery.

Table 2: Optimization of SPE Parameters for Simultaneous Analysis of Efavirenz and Levonorgestrel [70]

Parameter	Tested Range	Optimal Condition	Impact on Recovery
Solution pH	2 - 12	pH 2	Maximized recovery for both analytes (EFA: 67-83%, LVG: 70-95%).
Elution Solvent	Methanol, Acetonitrile	100% Methanol	Provided the highest elution efficiency.
Elution Volume	3 - 6 mL	4 mL	Adequate for complete desorption while preventing excessive dilution.

Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe (QuEChERS) is another powerful approach, especially for complex solid matrices like soil and sediment. A modified QuEChERS method has been successfully validated for 90 emerging organic contaminants spanning pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and plasticizers. The optimal recovery was achieved using acetonitrile for extraction with 1% formic acid, followed by a dispersive-SPE clean-up using a combination of C18 and PSA sorbents to remove fatty acids and other polar interferences [71].

Chromatographic and Mass Spectrometric Solutions

Even with excellent sample preparation, chromatographic separation is key to avoiding co-elution of residual matrix components. Strategies include:

• Chromatographic Parameter Adjustment: Modifying the gradient profile to shift the analyte's retention time away from regions of high ion suppression identified by post-column infusion [67].
• Column Technology: Utilizing sub-2μm particle columns or core-shell particles for enhanced resolution and peak capacity, which helps separate analytes from interferences [69].
• Low-Flow Techniques: Transitioning to microflow or nano-LC significantly enhances ionization efficiency by reducing flow rates, thereby increasing analyte concentration at the ion source and improving sensitivity [69] [72].

In the mass spectrometer, fine-tuning source parameters (e.g., gas flows, temperatures, and spray voltage) for specific analyte classes can improve ionization efficiency and robustness. Furthermore, leveraging high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) or ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) adds a dimension of separation, potentially reducing chemical noise [69].

Calibration Strategies to Compensate for Residual Effects

When matrix effects cannot be fully eliminated, calibration strategies are essential for compensation.

• Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards (SIL-IS): This is the gold-standard method. The SIL-IS experiences nearly identical matrix effects as the analyte, allowing for perfect compensation. However, these standards can be expensive and are not always commercially available [67] [68].
• Standard Addition: This method involves spiking the sample with known concentrations of the analyte. It is particularly useful for endogenous compounds or when a blank matrix is unavailable, as it inherently accounts for the matrix of the specific sample [67].
• Structural Analog Internal Standards: When SIL-IS are not an option, a carefully chosen structural analogue that co-elutes with the analyte can serve as an effective, though less perfect, internal standard for correction [67].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Qualitative Assessment of Matrix Effects via Post-Column Infusion

Principle: To identify chromatographic regions susceptible to ion suppression or enhancement [67] [68].

Procedure:

• Infusion Solution: Prepare a solution of the target analyte(s) at a concentration within the expected analytical range.
• LC Setup: Connect a T-piece between the HPLC column outlet and the MS ion source. Use a syringe pump to deliver the infusion solution at a constant flow rate (e.g., 10 μL/min) via the T-piece.
• Blank Injection: Inject a processed blank sample extract (e.g., blank urine, plasma, or wastewater) onto the LC column and start the chromatographic method.
• Data Acquisition: Monitor the MRM transition for the infused analyte. A stable signal should be observed in the absence of matrix. Any deviation (dip or peak) in this baseline signal indicates ion suppression or enhancement, respectively, at that specific retention time.
• Analysis: Use the resulting chromatogram to adjust the method so that analyte peaks elute in regions of minimal matrix interference.

Protocol 2: Optimization of SPE for Multi-Analyte Recovery

Principle: To systematically determine the optimal pH, solvent, and elution volume for SPE of multiple target analytes [70].

Reagents and Materials:

• Oasis HLB cartridges (60 mg/3 mL)
• Target analytes (e.g., Efavirenz and Levonorgestrel)
• Methanol, Acetonitrile (HPLC grade)
• Formic Acid, NaOH, HCl
• Synthetic sample solution (100 mL containing 1 ppm of each analyte)

Procedure:

• Conditioning: Pre-condition each HLB cartridge with 5 mL of methanol, followed by 5 mL of ultra-pure water.
• Parameter Variation:
  • pH Effect: Adjust the pH of the synthetic solution from 2 to 12 using 0.1 M HCl or NaOH. Load 100 mL onto the cartridge. Perform a wash step and elute with a fixed volume (e.g., 6 mL) of 80% methanol.
  • Solvent Effect: At the optimal pH, load the sample. Elute using different solvents and concentrations (e.g., 50%, 80%, and 100% Methanol and Acetonitrile).
  • Volume Effect: At the optimal pH and solvent, elute the adsorbed analytes with varying volumes of solvent (e.g., 3, 4, 5, and 6 mL).
• Sample Analysis: Evaporate the eluates under a gentle nitrogen stream at 50°C. Reconstitute the dried samples in 1 mL of methanol, filter, and analyze by LC-MS.
• Data Analysis: Calculate the percentage recovery for each analyte under each condition. The optimal parameters are those that yield the highest and most consistent recoveries for all target analytes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Materials for Advanced Sample Cleanup in LC-MS

Product / Technology	Function & Application	Key Feature
Oasis HLB Cartridges [70]	General-purpose SPE; retention of a wide polarity range of pharmaceuticals in wastewater.	Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance copolymer for reversed-phase extraction.
Captiva EMR Cartridges [73]	Pass-through cleanup for lipids (EMR-Lipid HF), mycotoxins, or PFAS in food matrices.	Enhanced Matrix Removal; simplifies workflow and reduces solvent use vs. QuEChERS.
InertSep WAX/GCB & GCB/WAX FF [73]	Dual-bed SPE for PFAS analysis per EPA Method 1633 in aqueous and solid samples.	Combines Weak Anion Exchange and Graphitized Carbon Black for selective cleanup.
QuEChERS Kits [71]	Multi-residue extraction and cleanup for pesticides, veterinary drugs, and mycotoxins in food and environmental solids.	Fast, efficient, and cost-effective; kits available with various d-SPE sorbents (C18, PSA, GCB).
Resprep FL+CarboPrep Plus [73]	SPE for organochlorine pesticides per EPA Method 8081.	Dual-bed of Florisil and Graphitized Carbon Black for enhanced cleanup.
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards [67]	Internal standardization for mass spectrometry to compensate for matrix effects and losses.	Co-elutes with analyte; nearly identical chemical properties provide superior quantification accuracy.

Method Validation and Technology Comparison: Ensuring Reliability and Choosing the Right Approach

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) is a critical sample preparation technique for purifying and concentrating analytes from complex matrices prior to liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis. The performance of an SPE protocol directly impacts the accuracy, sensitivity, and reproducibility of analytical results. According to leading experts, evaluating an SPE protocol involves measuring three key parameters: % recovery, matrix effect, and mass balance [74]. A systematic approach to measuring these parameters is essential for developing robust, reliable methods, particularly in regulated environments like pharmaceutical development and clinical diagnostics [75] [76].

This application note provides a standardized framework for validating SPE protocols, featuring detailed experimental methodologies, data analysis procedures, and practical guidance for troubleshooting. The protocols are aligned with international guidelines from regulatory bodies including the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [75].

Theoretical Framework: The Three Key Parameters

Recovery

Recovery quantifies the efficiency of extracting the analyte from the sample matrix through the SPE process. It is calculated as the percentage of the original analyte concentration that is successfully recovered after extraction [74]. High recovery indicates an efficient extraction protocol, while low recovery suggests potential analyte loss or suboptimal binding/elution conditions.

Matrix Effect

The matrix effect refers to the alteration of analyte ionization efficiency in the mass spectrometer due to co-eluting compounds from the sample matrix [75]. This can result in either ion suppression (loss of signal) or ion enhancement (increase in signal), compromising accuracy and precision [75]. Matrix effects are influenced by ionization mechanisms, analyte properties, fluid composition, and chromatographic conditions [75].

Mass Balance

Mass balance is a comprehensive assessment that accounts for the total amount of analyte throughout the extraction process [74]. It helps determine if analyte loss is due to irreversible binding to the sorbent, degradation, or other factors, providing a complete picture of the protocol's efficiency.

Experimental Protocol for Validation

This section outlines a integrated experimental design, based on the approach of Matuszewski et al., to simultaneously evaluate recovery, matrix effect, and process efficiency in a single experiment [75].

Experimental Design

The validation requires preparing three distinct sample sets using at least six different lots of the biological matrix (e.g., plasma, serum, cerebrospinal fluid) to account for biological variability [75]. For rare matrices, fewer sources may be acceptable [75]. Each set should be prepared at a minimum of two analyte concentrations (e.g., low and high quality control levels), in triplicate [75].

• Set 1 (Neat Solvent Standards): Prepare by spiking the analyte and internal standard (IS) directly into a neat solution of the mobile phase. This set represents 100% recovery and is used to determine the baseline response without matrix or extraction [75].
• Set 2 (Post-Extraction Spiked Matrix): Take blank matrix samples through the entire SPE procedure. After extraction and reconstitution, spike the analyte and IS into the cleaned extract. This set measures the matrix effect alone, as the extraction process is bypassed [75].
• Set 3 (Pre-Extraction Spiked Matrix): Spike the analyte and IS into the blank matrix before performing the SPE procedure. This set reflects the combined impact of both the matrix effect and the extraction recovery, representing the actual bioanalytical method [75].

Materials and Reagents

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for SPE Protocol Validation

Item	Function & Importance	Examples & Notes
SPE Sorbents	Selective retention of analytes; choice dictates specificity and capacity.	Oasis HLB: Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balanced polymer for acids, bases, neutrals [74]. Oasis PRiME HLB: Simplified protocol, removes phospholipids without conditioning [76]. Mixed-Mode IEX: For selective ion-exchange interactions (e.g., MCX for bases, MAX for acids) [74].
Internal Standard (IS)	Corrects for variability in sample prep and ionization; crucial for accurate data.	Isotopically labeled version of the analyte is ideal [75] [76].
LC-MS Grade Solvents	Minimize background contamination and interference for high-sensitivity detection.	Optima LC-MS grade solvents recommended to reduce phthalate contamination [77].
Biological Matrix	Should mimic actual study samples. Using multiple lots is critical.	Plasma, serum, urine, cerebrospinal fluid [75] [76]. At least 6 different lots are recommended [75].
Vacuum Manifold / µElution Plates	Device format depends on sample volume and throughput needs.	96-well plates: High throughput bioanalysis [74]. µElution Plates: Ideal for small sample volumes, minimize analyte loss [74]. Syringe-based cartridges: Individual sample cleanup [74].

Sample Preparation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical flow of the experiment for a single matrix lot and concentration level.

Data Analysis and Calculations

Using the peak areas (analyte and IS) obtained from the LC-MS/MS analysis of the three sample sets, calculate the following parameters for each matrix lot and concentration.

Table 2: Formulas for Calculating Key SPE Validation Parameters

Parameter	Formula	Interpretation & Acceptance Criteria
Matrix Effect (ME)	Absolute ME (%) = (A₂ / A₁) × 100% IS-normalized ME = (MEAnalyte / MEIS)	A₁ = Peak area of Set 1 (neat solvent). A₂ = Peak area of Set 2 (post-extraction spike). • 100%: No matrix effect. • <100%: Ion suppression. • >100%: Ion enhancement. CV of IS-normalized MF should typically be <15% [75].
Recovery (RE)	Recovery (%) = (A₃ / A₂) × 100% IS-normalized RE = (REAnalyte / REIS)	A₃ = Peak area of Set 3 (pre-extraction spike). A₂ = Peak area of Set 2 (post-extraction spike). • Consistent, high recovery (e.g., >70-80%) is ideal, indicating efficient extraction and elution. High precision (low CV) across matrix lots is critical.
Process Efficiency (PE)	Process Efficiency (%) = (A₃ / A₁) × 100% IS-normalized PE = (PEAnalyte / PEIS)	A₃ = Peak area of Set 3 (pre-extraction spike). A₁ = Peak area of Set 1 (neat solvent). Reflects the combined effect of recovery and matrix effect. A value of 100% is theoretically perfect.
Mass Balance	Mass Balance = Recovery + Loss	Loss is inferred. If recovery is low but process efficiency is high, losses are minimal and matrix effect is the main issue. If both are low, significant analyte loss (e.g., binding) is likely.

Advanced Considerations & Troubleshooting

Addressing Guideline Variations

International guidelines, while aligned in principle, have nuanced differences in their recommendations, as summarized below.

Table 3: Comparison of International Guideline Recommendations for Matrix Effect Evaluation

Guideline	Matrix Lots	Concentration Levels	Key Recommendations & Focus
EMA (2011)	6	2	Focuses on post-extraction spiking to evaluate absolute and IS-normalized matrix factor (MF). CV <15% for MF [75].
ICH M10 (2022)	6	2	Evaluates matrix effect via precision and accuracy for each matrix lot. Accuracy <15% of nominal, precision <15% [75].
CLSI C62A (2022)	5	7 points (for calibration)	Evaluates absolute %ME and CV of peak areas. Refers to Matuszewski et al. and CLSI C50 as best practices [75].
CLSI C50A (2007)	5	Not Specified	Recommends evaluation of absolute ME, recovery, and process efficiency via pre- and post-extraction spiking (Sets 1, 2, 3) [75].

Troubleshooting Common Issues

• Low Recovery: Re-optimize the SPE protocol. Consider changing the sorbent chemistry (e.g., to a mixed-mode sorbent for improved selectivity [74]), adjusting wash stringency, using a stronger elution solvent, or switching to a more efficient format like µElution plates to minimize nonspecific binding [74].
• High Matrix Effect: Improve sample cleanup. Consider using specialized sorbents like Oasis PRiME HLB, which is designed to remove phospholipids [76], or incorporate a pass-through cleanup cartridge like Captiva EMR for specific interferences [73]. Optimizing chromatographic separation to shift the analyte's retention time away from the region of ion suppression can also be highly effective [75].
• Poor Mass Balance: If recovery is low and significant analyte is unaccounted for, investigate analyte stability and consider potential adsorption to container surfaces. The use of isotopically labeled internal standards is critical here, as they can compensate for such losses [75].

A rigorous validation of your SPE protocol through the measurement of recovery, matrix effect, and mass balance is fundamental to ensuring the quality of bioanalytical data. The integrated experimental strategy outlined here, compliant with major regulatory guidelines, provides a comprehensive understanding of your method's performance. By systematically addressing these parameters, researchers can develop robust, reliable, and reproducible SPE methods that underpin successful LC-MS/MS analysis in drug development and clinical research.

Within clinical research and toxicology laboratories, effective sample preparation is a critical prerequisite for achieving reliable, sensitive, and robust liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis. Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Supported Liquid Extraction (SLE) represent two prominent techniques for purifying and concentrating analytes from complex biological matrices. This application note provides a detailed comparison of SPE and SLE workflows, framing them within the broader thesis that understanding the distinct mechanisms and applications of each technique is fundamental to developing superior LC-MS methods. We present structured experimental data, detailed protocols, and clear workflow visualizations to guide researchers and drug development professionals in selecting and optimizing the most appropriate sample preparation strategy for their specific clinical applications.

Technical Comparison: Mechanisms and Characteristics

SPE and SLE are founded on different separation principles, leading to distinct operational workflows and performance outcomes. SPE is a retentive process where analytes are selectively retained on a sorbent based on chemical interactions such as reversed-phase, ion-exchange, or mixed-mode mechanisms, followed by washing and elution [3]. This allows for high selectivity and the potential for concentrating analytes. In contrast, SLE is a non-retentive technique that operates on the same partitioning principle as traditional liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) [78]. The aqueous sample is immobilized on a high-surface-area, inert diatomaceous earth or synthetic support, creating a thin film. When an immiscible organic solvent is passed through, analytes partition efficiently into it based on their solubility, while the aqueous phase and highly polar matrix components remain on the support [78] [79].

The fundamental difference in mechanism is reflected in their procedural steps. A typical SPE protocol involves multiple stages: sorbent conditioning, sample loading, interference washing, and analyte elution [3]. SLE, however, simplifies this to a core three-step process: sample loading and absorption, a brief waiting period for phase distribution, and elution with an organic solvent [79]. This inherent simplicity often translates to faster methods with less hands-on time, particularly advantageous in high-throughput clinical environments.

Table 1: Core Characteristics of SPE and SLE

Feature	Solid Phase Extraction (SPE)	Supported Liquid Extraction (SLE)
Principle	Selective retention on a functionalized sorbent [3]	Liquid-liquid partitioning on an inert support [78]
Typical Format	Cartridges, 96-well plates with various sorbent chemistries	Cartridges, 96-well plates with diatomaceous earth or polymer
Key Advantage	High selectivity and clean-up; concentration of analytes [3]	Simplicity, high recovery, minimal emulsion formation [78]
Workflow Steps	Condition, Equilibrate, Load, Wash, Elute (5+ steps) [79]	Load, Wait, Elute (3 steps) [79]
Best For	Selective isolation, complex matrices, ionizable compounds	Efficient extraction of non-polar analytes, high-throughput workflows

Experimental Data and Performance Comparison

Quantitative Analysis of Workflow Performance

A comparative study of sample preparation techniques for clinical LC-MS/MS assays reveals distinct performance trade-offs. The data below, synthesized from evaluations across different matrices and analytes, highlights how technique selection impacts key operational and analytical outcomes.

Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of Sample Prep Techniques for Clinical LC-MS/MS

Protocol	Analyte Concentration?	Relative Cost	Relative Complexity	Relative Matrix Depletion	Typical Application
Dilute-and-Shoot	No	Low	Simple	Less	Low-protein matrices (e.g., urine, CSF) [3]
Protein Precipitation	No	Low	Simple	Least	High-protein matrices (serum, plasma) [3]
Supported Liquid Extraction	Yes	High	Moderately Complex	More	Broad-range analytes; high recovery needs [3]
Solid Phase Extraction	Yes	High	Complex	More	Selective isolation; complex matrices [3]

Case Study: Steroid Analysis in Serum using SLE

Background: The accurate quantification of steroids in serum requires high sensitivity and minimal matrix interference to achieve very low limits of detection with LC-MS/MS [80].

Experimental Protocol:

• Sample Pre-treatment: Serum samples were subjected to pre-treatment, which may include dilution and pH adjustment, to ensure analytes are in a suitable form for extraction.
• SLE Procedure: The prepared aqueous sample was loaded onto a Strata SE SLE plate (Phenomenex). The sample was allowed to absorb into the sorbent for 5-10 minutes.
• Elution: Analytes were eluted using ethyl acetate. This solvent provides an excellent, more sustainable alternative to halogenated solvents like dichloromethane, which is being phased out due to regulatory concerns [80].
• Analysis: The eluent was evaporated to dryness, reconstituted in a mobile-phase compatible solvent, and analyzed by LC-MS/MS.

Results: The SLE extraction using Strata SE SLE consistently produced exceptionally clean extracts with minimal background interferences. This cleanliness is vital for accurate quantitation at low concentrations. The method demonstrated highly reproducible performance across multiple product lots, which is critical for maintaining assay reliability and reducing repeat analyses that consume lab resources [80].

Case Study: Analysis of Drugs of Abuse in Oral Fluid

Background: A study compared SLE, Salt-Assisted Liquid-Liquid Extraction (SALLE), and dilute-and-shoot for analyzing drugs of abuse in oral fluid, a matrix complicated by collection buffer additives [81].

Experimental Protocol (SLE):

• Sample Preparation: 100 µL of oral fluid/buffer mixture was mixed with 100 µL of 5% ammonium hydroxide and 20 µL of internal standard.
• Loading: The 200 µL mixture was loaded into a 200 mg Resprep SLE cartridge (Restek). A light vacuum was applied to initiate loading, after which the sample was allowed to absorb into the sorbent for 5 minutes.
• Elution: Analytes were eluted with two 500 µL aliquots of 95:5 dichloromethane:isopropanol.
• Reconstitution: The eluent was evaporated to dryness and reconstituted in 100 µL of a 90:10 water:methanol mixture with 0.1% formic acid for LC-MS/MS analysis [81].

Results: The dilute-and-shoot approach demonstrated poor sensitivity and was not pursued further. In contrast, both SLE and SALLE samples produced good analytical responses and were evaluated for accuracy, precision, and linearity, with SLE providing a robust, multi-analyte extraction workflow [81].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Solid Phase Extraction for Basic Drugs

This generic protocol for extracting basic analytes from plasma or serum uses a mixed-mode cation exchange (MCX) sorbent, which combines reversed-phase and cation-exchange mechanisms for superior selectivity [82].

Materials:

• SPE Sorbent: Oasis Mixed-mode Cation Exchange (MCX) 96-well plate, 30 mg [82].
• Solvents: Methanol (LC-MS grade), Water (LC-MS grade), Elution Solvent (e.g., 5% ammonium hydroxide in methanol).

Procedure:

• Conditioning: Pass 1-2 mL of methanol through the SPE sorbent, followed by 1-2 mL of water. Do not allow the sorbent to dry out.
• Sample Loading: Acidify the plasma or serum sample (e.g., with 1% formic acid) to ensure target basic analytes are positively charged. Load the sample onto the conditioned sorbent.
• Washing: Rinse the sorbent sequentially with:
  • 1-2 mL of water to remove salts and polar interferences.
  • 1-2 mL of a methanol/water mixture (e.g., 20:80) to remove less polar interferences.
  • 1-2 mL of methanol to dry the sorbent and remove residual water.
• Elution: Apply 1-2 mL of elution solvent (e.g., 5% ammonium hydroxide in methanol). The basic conditions neutralize the analyte charge, breaking the ion-exchange interaction, while the organic solvent disrupts reversed-phase retention.
• Post-Processing: Collect the eluate. Evaporate to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen. Reconstitute the dry residue in a small volume (e.g., 100-200 µL) of a solvent compatible with the LC mobile phase (e.g., initial mobile phase composition) [82] [3].

Protocol: Supported Liquid Extraction for Neutral Analytes

This protocol is optimized for neutral, hydrophobic analytes like steroids or certain drugs from serum, using SLE to leverage its high partitioning efficiency.

Materials:

• SLE Sorbent: Strata SE SLE 96-well plate (Phenomenex) or equivalent diatomaceous earth-based product [80].
• Solvents: Ethyl Acetate (LC-MS grade), Reconstitution Solvent (e.g., methanol or mobile phase).

Procedure:

• Sample Loading and Absorption: Dilute the serum sample if necessary, which can help reduce viscosity and matrix effects. Load the aqueous sample onto the dry SLE sorbent. A general guideline is to use 1 g of sorbent per 1 mL of aqueous sample [78]. Allow the sample to fully absorb and distribute as a thin film over the sorbent. This typically takes 5-15 minutes; insufficient absorption time can lead to poor recovery.
• Elution: Once the sample is fully absorbed, slowly pass the organic elution solvent through the SLE bed. Ethyl acetate is an excellent sustainable choice for hydrophobic analytes, providing high recovery with minimal matrix effects [80]. Use a volume of organic solvent at least equivalent to the volume of the aqueous sample; as a rule of thumb, two column volumes are recommended for maximum recovery [78]. Multiple extractions with smaller volumes can sometimes be more efficient than a single large volume.
• Post-Processing: Collect the organic eluent. As the extract is often in a non-water-miscible solvent, it typically requires evaporation to dryness under a nitrogen stream. Reconstitute the dry residue in a water-miscible solvent suitable for LC-MS injection, such as methanol or the starting mobile phase [79].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Selecting the appropriate consumables is critical for successful method development. The following table details key solutions used in the featured experiments and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for SPE and SLE Workflows

Research Reagent Solution	Function / Principle	Example Application
Strata SE SLE Plates (Phenomenex)	Next-generation SLE product engineered for clean extracts from biological matrices; enables use of ethyl acetate over halogenated solvents [80].	Ideal for low-level analytical workflows like serum steroid testing [80].
Oasis HLB Sorbent (Waters)	Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balanced reversed-phase sorbent; retains a broad range of acidic, basic, and neutral compounds [82].	A simple, cost-effective first choice for broad chemical space coverage in environmental or bioanalytical NTA [82].
Mixed-Mode SPE Sorbents (e.g., MCX, WAX)	Combine reversed-phase with ion-exchange interactions for highly selective retention of ionizable compounds based on both polarity and charge [82].	Selective isolation of basic (MCX) or acidic (WAX) drugs from complex matrices like plasma [82].
HybridSPE-Phospholipid Cartridges (Supelco)	Specialized sorbent (e.g., zirconia-coated silica) designed to selectively remove phospholipids from protein-precipitated samples [83].	Reducing a major source of matrix effects in LC-MS/MS analysis of plasma/serum [83] [3].
Resprep SLE Cartridges/Plates (Restek)	Diatomaceous earth-based SLE products for efficient liquid-liquid extraction in a cartridge or high-throughput plate format [81].	High-recovery extraction of drugs of abuse from challenging matrices like oral fluid [81].

The choice between SPE and SLE is not a matter of one technique being universally superior, but rather of selecting the right tool for the specific analytical challenge. Each method occupies a distinct space within the sample preparation landscape, guided by the overarching thesis that a nuanced understanding of their capabilities enables optimal LC-MS method development.

SPE is the more powerful and versatile technique when selectivity is the primary driver. The availability of diverse sorbent chemistries (reversed-phase, ion-exchange, mixed-mode) allows for the targeted isolation of analytes from extremely complex matrices and the effective removal of specific interferences like phospholipids [82] [3]. This makes SPE indispensable for challenging applications involving ionizable compounds, low-abundance analytes in high-interference backgrounds, or when extensive sample clean-up is required to protect the LC-MS instrumentation and ensure long-term robustness [3].

SLE excels in applications demanding efficiency, simplicity, and high recovery for a broad range of analytes. Its primary advantages are a simplified workflow with fewer steps, high reproducibility due to the elimination of emulsion formation, and excellent recovery for neutral and hydrophobic compounds [78] [79]. SLE is particularly well-suited for high-throughput clinical environments, such as toxicology screening and endocrine testing, where rapid turnaround and minimal hands-on time are critical. Furthermore, modern SLE products facilitate the use of more sustainable solvents like ethyl acetate, aligning with green chemistry principles [80].

In conclusion, the decision framework is clear: For maximum selectivity and clean-up from highly complex samples, SPE is the recommended path. For efficient, high-recovery extraction of non-polar to moderately polar analytes with a streamlined workflow, SLE presents a robust and often superior alternative. The ongoing evolution of both sorbent technologies and automation platforms will continue to refine these workflows, solidifying their roles as cornerstone techniques in clinical LC-MS sample preparation.

Solid phase extraction (SPE) remains a cornerstone technique in modern analytical laboratories, particularly for sample preparation prior to liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis. The years 2024-2025 have witnessed significant advancements in SPE technologies aimed at addressing complex analytical challenges, including the detection of trace-level contaminants in challenging matrices and the push for greater automation and efficiency. This review examines the latest SPE products and methodologies introduced during this period, with a specific focus on their application in pharmaceutical, environmental, and food safety testing. The innovations span novel sorbent chemistries, automated platforms, and optimized protocols that collectively enhance analytical performance by improving selectivity, recovery, and throughput while minimizing manual intervention and environmental impact.

New SPE Product Landscape: 2024-2025

The SPE market has continued to evolve with specialized products designed for specific analytical challenges, particularly in regulated environments. Manufacturers have focused on developing solutions that simplify workflow complexity while providing robust performance for demanding applications.

Table 1: New SPE Cartridges and Kits Introduced in 2024-2025

Product Name	Manufacturer	Application Focus	Key Features	Sorbent Chemistry
Captiva EMR PFAS Food Cartridge	Agilent Technologies	PFAS analysis in food matrices	Pass-through cleanup, automation-friendly, reduces sample processing steps	Enhanced Matrix Removal (EMR) [73]
Resprep PFAS SPE	Restek	PFAS in aqueous and solid samples (EPA Method 1633)	Dual-bed with filter aid, minimizes clogging	Weak anion exchange (150 mg) + graphitized carbon black (50 mg) + filter aid (200 mg) [73]
InertSep WAX FF/GCB	GL Sciences	PFAS analysis (EPA Method 1633)	High purity sorbents, optimized permeability	Weak anion exchange + graphitized carbon black [73]
Captiva EMR Mycotoxins	Agilent Technologies	Multiclass mycotoxin analysis	Eliminates multiple extraction protocols, reduces matrix effects	Mycotoxin-specific EMR [73]
Captiva EMR Lipid HF	Agilent Technologies	Lipid removal from complex, fatty samples	High-flow size exclusion with hydrophobic interaction	EMR Lipid [73]
Resprep FL+CarboPrep Plus	Restek	Organochlorine pesticides (EPA Method 8081)	10x throughput improvement over traditional methods	Florisil (1000 mg) + graphitized carbon black (95 mg) [73]
InertSep QuEChERS Kit	GL Sciences	Multi-residue analysis in food	Applicable to pesticides, veterinary drugs, and mycotoxins	Various QuEChERS formulations [73]

Table 2: New SPE Instrumentation and Systems (2024-2025)

Product Name	Manufacturer	Type	Key Features	Throughput
VERSA 1100 SPE	Aurora Biomed	Fully automated SPE system	Start-to-finish plate processing, minimal human intervention	Up to 96 samples simultaneously [84]
Samplify	Sielc Technologies	Automated sampling system	Adjustable volumes (5-500 µL), automatic mixing, dilution capabilities	48-vial plate or 96-well plate [73]
Alltesta Mini-Autosampler	Sielc Technologies & Newcrom, Inc.	Multi-functional autosampler	Functions as fraction collector, reactor probe, with reagent addition	Variable, customizable [73]

The global SPE system market, valued at approximately $500 million in 2025, is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7% through 2033, exceeding $900 million. This growth is propelled by increasing demands from pharmaceutical, environmental, and food safety sectors, alongside technological advancements in automation and sorbent development [85].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: PFAS Analysis in Complex Matrices Using Dual-Bed SPE Cartridges

This protocol utilizes the Restek Resprep PFAS SPE cartridge, designed specifically for EPA Method 1633, which measures up to 40 PFAS compounds in wastewater, surface water, groundwater, soil, sediment, biosolids, and fish tissue [73].

Materials and Reagents:

• Resprep PFAS SPE cartridges (6 mL, containing 200 mg filter aid, 150 mg weak anion exchange, and 50 mg graphitized carbon black)
• SPE vacuum manifold
• Methanol (LC-MS grade)
• Ammonium acetate buffer (10 mM, pH 4.5)
• Type I water (LC-MS grade)
• Ammonium hydroxide solution (0.1% in methanol)

Procedure:

• Conditioning: Pre-condition the SPE cartridge with 5 mL methanol followed by 5 mL Type I water. Do not allow the sorbent bed to dry completely.
• Sample Loading: Load up to 500 mL of aqueous sample (or sample extract for solid matrices) at a controlled flow rate of 5-10 mL/min. For samples with high particulate matter, use the integrated filter aid to prevent clogging.
• Washing: Wash the cartridge with 5 mL of 10 mM ammonium acetate buffer (pH 4.5) followed by 5 mL of methanol:water (50:50, v/v).
• Drying: Apply full vacuum for 10 minutes to dry the sorbent completely.
• Elution: Elute PFAS analytes using 10 mL of 0.1% ammonium hydroxide in methanol into a collection tube.
• Concentration: Evaporate the eluate to near dryness under a gentle nitrogen stream at 40°C and reconstitute in 1 mL of methanol:water (20:80, v/v) for LC-MS/MS analysis.

Critical Notes:

• Use PFAS-free solvents and materials throughout to prevent contamination.
• Include procedural blanks to monitor background contamination.
• For complex matrices, a second elution with 5 mL of methanol containing 1% formic acid may recover additional PFAS compounds.

Protocol 2: High-Throughput Mycotoxin Analysis Using EMR Technology

This protocol employs the Captiva EMR Mycotoxins cartridges for multiclass mycotoxin analysis in food and animal feed, eliminating the need for multiple extraction protocols [73].

Materials and Reagents:

• Captiva EMR Mycotoxins cartridges (6 mL)
• Positive pressure manifold
• Acetonitrile (LC-MS grade)
• Acetic acid (≥99.7%)
• EMR-lipid cleanup reagent

Procedure:

• Sample Extraction: Homogenize 2 g of sample with 8 mL of extraction solvent (acetonitrile:water:acetic acid, 80:19:1, v/v/v) for 30 seconds.
• Centrifugation: Centrifuge the extract at 4000 × g for 5 minutes.
• Dilution: Transfer 1 mL of supernatant to a tube containing 50 mg of EMR-lipid cleanup reagent. Vortex for 30 seconds.
• Cartridge Conditioning: Condition the Captiva EMR Mycotoxins cartridge with 3 mL acetonitrile followed by 3 mL water.
• Sample Loading: Load the entire diluted extract onto the conditioned cartridge.
• Elution: Apply positive pressure to collect the pass-through fraction directly into an autosampler vial.
• Analysis: Inject 5 μL directly into the LC-MS/MS system.

Critical Notes:

• The pass-through design eliminates manual elution steps, significantly reducing processing time.
• For high-fat samples (>20% fat content), increase the EMR-lipid cleanup reagent to 100 mg.
• The protocol is validated for aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, fumonisins, deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, and T-2/HT-2 toxins.

Protocol 3: Automated SPE for Proteomics and Metabolomics

This protocol details the use of Aurora Biomed's VERSA 1100 SPE system with Phenomenex's Impact Protein Precipitation Plates for metabolomics research, reducing manual processing time from 6 hours to 3-4 hours for 96 samples [84].

Materials and Reagents:

• VERSA 1100 SPE system
• Impact Protein Precipitation Plates
• Methanol (LC-MS grade)
• Acetonitrile (LC-MS grade)
• Internal standard solution
• Type I water

Procedure:

• System Setup: Install the Impact Protein Precipitation Plates in the VERSA 1100 deck.
• Parameter Programming: Configure the method parameters in the VERSA software:
  • Sample volume: 50-100 μL
  • Precipitation solvent: 300 μL cold acetonitrile (containing internal standard)
  • Mixing: 5 cycles of aspiration/dispersion
  • Incubation time: 10 minutes at 4°C
  • Filtration pressure: 5 psi
• Plate Loading: Position the sample plate and collection plate in the designated positions.
• Automated Execution: Initiate the automated sequence which includes:
  • Sample randomization
  • Protein precipitation
  • Filtration
  • Collection
• Analysis: Transfer the collection plate directly to the GC/MS or LC-MS/MS system.

Critical Notes:

• The automated randomization minimizes human error in sample tracking.
• For proteomics applications, substitute the precipitation solvent with acidified methanol.
• Regular calibration of the liquid handling system is essential for reproducibility.

Workflow Visualization

Figure 1: Standard SPE Workflow for LC-MS Analysis

Figure 2: Automated SPE Workflow Using Systems like VERSA 1100

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Advanced SPE Applications

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples	Key Considerations
Enhanced Matrix Removal (EMR) Sorbents	Selective removal of matrix components (lipids, proteins, carbohydrates)	PFAS and mycotoxin analysis in food; drug analysis in biological fluids [73]	Lipid removal efficiency >95%; compatible with multi-class analyses
Weak Anion Exchange (WAX) Sorbents	Retention of acidic compounds including PFAS	Environmental water analysis; biological monitoring [73]	High capacity for carboxylic and sulfonic acids; requires specific pH control
Graphitized Carbon Black (GCB)	Planar molecule retention; pigment removal	Pesticide analysis in complex food matrices; environmental samples [73]	May retain planar analytes; requires optimization of elution solvents
QuEChERS Extraction Packets	Rapid extraction and partitioning	Multi-residue pesticide analysis; veterinary drugs in food [73]	Standardized formulations for different matrix types (AOAC, EN methods)
Protein Precipitation Plates	High-throughput protein removal	Metabolomics; bioanalysis of small molecules [84]	Compatible with automation; minimal analyte adsorption
Automated SPE Instrumentation	Unattended sample processing; improved reproducibility	High-throughput laboratories; 24/7 operation [73] [84]	Integration with liquid handlers; software compatibility

The SPE innovations of 2024-2025 demonstrate a clear trajectory toward greater specificity, efficiency, and automation. The development of matrix-specific products like the Captiva EMR cartridges and application-focused solutions such as the Resprep PFAS SPE address critical analytical challenges in trace analysis. Concurrently, automated systems like the VERSA 1100 SPE and Sielc's Samplify are transforming laboratory workflows by significantly reducing manual intervention while improving reproducibility. These advancements, coupled with emerging trends in miniaturization, green chemistry, and integration with analytical instrumentation, position SPE as an increasingly sophisticated and indispensable tool for modern LC-MS/MS laboratories. As regulatory requirements become more stringent and analytical challenges more complex, these new SPE technologies provide researchers with powerful solutions to achieve enhanced performance in quantitative analysis.

Conclusion

Solid-phase extraction remains an indispensable, evolving technology for reliable LC-MS sample preparation. Mastering its fundamentals enables appropriate sorbent and method selection for diverse applications—from environmental monitoring of PFAS to sensitive clinical biomarker quantification. Successful implementation requires meticulous optimization of parameters like pH, solvent strength, and flow rates, guided by systematic troubleshooting to overcome challenges in recovery and reproducibility. Rigorous validation against metrics of recovery, matrix effect, and sensitivity is non-negotiable for generating trustworthy data. Future directions point toward increased automation with online SPE-LC-MS/MS systems, sustainable solvent use, and novel sorbents offering greater selectivity, empowering researchers to tackle increasingly complex analytical challenges in biomedical research and drug development with confidence and precision.

References

• 1. LC-MS Sample Preparation [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/industrial/mass-spectrometry/mass-spectrometry-learning-center/liquid-chromatography-mass-spectrometry-lc-ms-information/lc-ms-sample-preparation.html]
• 2. Innovations and Strategies of Sample Preparation ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/innovations-and-strategies-of-sample-preparation-techniques-to-reduce-matrix-effects-during-lc-ms-ms-bioanalysis]
• 3. A practical guide to sample preparation for liquid ... [https://www.spectroscopyeurope.com/article/practical-guide-sample-preparation-liquid-chromatography-tandem-mass-spectrometry-clinical]
• 4. Solid-Phase Extraction: From Sample Prep Fundamentals ... [https://www.waters.com/blog/solid-phase-extraction-from-sample-prep-fundamentals-to-best-practices/?srsltid=AfmBOoo1dqPgwqlSBUI8X1mikHowyqn7sCQutX_M5D59VOtzOfU04gGM]
• 5. Comparison of sample preparation methods for the ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25542569/]
• 6. SPE-LC-MS/MS optimisation using response surface ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967325004005]
• 7. A comparative study of SPE- and DLLME-based methods ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026265X24024676]
• 8. LC-MS Sample Preparation: Techniques & Challenges [https://opentrons.com/applications/lc-ms-sample-preparation?srsltid=AfmBOopn97Q5pmdc6AFJEwvnsu9N570sLoKYru2wwv64cOEJSSkyAMF5]
• 9. The Fundamentals of Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) [https://www.restek.com/articles/the-fundamentals-of-solid-phase-extraction-SPE?srsltid=AfmBOorR1QFUJa3gx-lpBmzHpl883lGoEucJXL83DFKJwnWKY1gjo8OA]
• 10. Enhanced Sensitivity Using µElution Plate [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/it/it/library/application-notes/2010/oasis-sample-extraction-products-enhanced-sensitivity-using-micro-elution-plate.html?srsltid=AfmBOooEvhinq73Bi6vJOUrWkzirvQp9iv2ILaWr0TcyqK9FIbqi1qYN]
• 11. Application of a novel ultra-low elution volume 96-well ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0731708505000610]
• 12. A review of the modern principles and applications of solid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9659506/]
• 13. - LC : Techniques & Challenges MS Sample Preparation [https://opentrons.com/applications/lc-ms-sample-preparation]
• 14. A global problem. The trouble with culturing cells in 96-well ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8024881/]
• 15. Comparison of Two Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Methods for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6321002/]
• 16. Improving sample for preparation - LC /MS analysis MS [https://www.news-medical.net/whitepaper/20251028/Improving-sample-preparation-for-LC-MSMS-analysis.aspx]
• 17. The Role of Polymers in Solid-Phase Extraction and ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/role-polymers-solid-phase-extraction-and-sample-preparation]
• 18. How Much Sample Can I Upload Onto My SPE Device? [https://www.phenomenex.com/knowledge-center/spe-knowledge-center/how-much-sample-can-i-load-into-my-spe-device?srsltid=AfmBOopSaU_AGkz98kvOIqLtPJNQBebD7SiezCPm375lKprpo7YMWsci]
• 19. Preparation of Zwitterionic Silica‐Based Sorbents for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12454925/]
• 20. Monolithic vs. particle-based solid-phase extraction for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/va/d5va00057b]
• 21. High-Throughput Solid Phase Extraction for Targeted and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40080444/]
• 22. Analysis of PFAS in Water according to EPA 1633 [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/environmental-testing-and-industrial-hygiene/waste-water-and-process-water-testing/analysis-of-pfas-in-water-according-to-epa-1633?srsltid=AfmBOoq8_fUokMPXXulxjionA2XIYrz73TrumTleGALr_nCHWbT6RWFg]
• 23. PFAS in Waste and Air: Evolving Analytical Methods and ... [https://www.westonandsampson.com/news/pfas-in-waste-and-air-evolving-analytical-methods-and-regulations]
• 24. Robust LC–MS/MS Methodology for Low-Level PFAS in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4532/6/4/49]
• 25. EPA PFAS Drinking Water Laboratory Methods | US EPA [https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epa-pfas-drinking-water-laboratory-methods]
• 26. Upgrading Sample Preparation for EPA Method 1633A [https://www.restek.com/chromablography/upgrading-sample-preparation-for-epa-method-1633a-increasing-sample-throughput,-cartridge-selection,-and-the-filter-aid-advantage-part-1?srsltid=AfmBOoorltR9njCWwcYU-SXO1qwGxmNFto58rhLryhv9xm5avPJ2Mavb]
• 27. Tackling PFAS Background in Analytical Chemistry [https://www.palsystem.com/en/newsroom/news/pfas-free-consumables/]
• 28. 11 Sampling and Analytical Methods [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/11-sampling-and-analytical-methods/]
• 29. Analysis of per-and polyfluorinated alkyl substances by ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021967325006065]
• 30. Solid-Phase Extraction: From Sample Prep Fundamentals ... [https://www.waters.com/blog/solid-phase-extraction-from-sample-prep-fundamentals-to-best-practices/?srsltid=AfmBOoq6W1zbcHFKF_ANQT5r6TH5BFzbkXNrHVsiHulPW4f_MsDuGpID]
• 31. oasis hlb extraction: Topics by Science.gov [https://www.science.gov/topicpages/o/oasis+hlb+extraction]
• 32. Risk Assessment of Pharmaceutical Contaminants in Pharmaceutical Wastewater - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11535420/]
• 33. Removal efficiencies and environmental risk assessment of selected pharmaceuticals and metabolites at a wastewater treatment plant in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11671546/]
• 34. Advances in the Application of Liquid Chromatography ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9439901/]
• 35. Protocol for Experimental Design and PPL Solid Phase ... [https://www.protocols.io/view/protocol-for-experimental-design-and-ppl-solid-pha-dktg4wjw.html]
• 36. New Insights into Mycotoxin Contamination, Detection, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12567597/]
• 37. Mycotoxin analysis from early 2025 data shows rising threat [https://www.alltech.com/blog/mycotoxin-analysis-early-2025-data-shows-rising-threat]
• 38. Automating liquid sample preparation workflow optimizes ... [https://www.tecan.com/blog/automating-liquid-sample-preparation-workflow-optimizes-your-clinical-lc-ms-investment]
• 39. Solid-Phase Extraction: From Sample Prep Fundamentals ... [https://www.waters.com/blog/solid-phase-extraction-from-sample-prep-fundamentals-to-best-practices/?srsltid=AfmBOoqax7H4D3Rb7blwjCV0rwQ4H8-yJCOZSLPNT2M4_ThyLYqMA1HO]
• 40. A Simplified Approach to Optimize SPE Method ... [https://www.spectroscopyonline.com/view/simplified-approach-optimize-spe-method-development-downstream-lc-ms-analysis-allowing-100-organic-0]
• 41. Determination of 19 Steroid Hormones in Human Serum and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9699436/]
• 42. Quantification of Endogenous Steroids and Hormonal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12224168/]
• 43. When should I choose SPE instead of SLE? [https://www.biotage.com/blog/when-should-i-choose-spe-instead-of-sle]
• 44. Comparison of SPE vs. SLE for the Quantitative Analysis ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/comparison-spe-vs-sle-quantitative-analysis-anabolic-steroids-serum-using-lc-msms]
• 45. Solid-Phase Extraction: From Sample Prep Fundamentals ... [https://www.waters.com/blog/solid-phase-extraction-from-sample-prep-fundamentals-to-best-practices/?srsltid=AfmBOopWOcroeObqVSo6TxJMkqV3pPR4fIF_p6pc--pjaIu24G8BHJyw]
• 46. Automated solid-phase extraction approaches for large ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19161651/]
• 47. Automated Workflow for High-Throughput LC–MS/MS ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12295711/]
• 48. Solid Phase Extraction Guide [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/industrial/chromatography/chromatography-sample-preparation/sample-preparation-consumables/solid-phase-extraction-consumables/spe-guide.html]
• 49. Why Is Your SPE Recovery So Low? - News [https://www.alwsci.com/news/why-is-your-spe-recovery-so-low-85174255.html]
• 50. Sample Prep Tech Tip: Low Recovery- SPE Method [https://www.phenomenex.com/knowledge-center/spe-knowledge-center/i-am-getting-low-recovery-in-my-spe-method?srsltid=AfmBOoqzIZGKRIMJMWUnGo04vfF3Jo0kST4V3d3ePqg0VT_8g1nu8T78]
• 51. Solving Recovery Problems in Solid-Phase Extraction [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/solving-recovery-problems-solid-phase-extraction]
• 52. A Novel Solid Phase Extraction Sample Preparation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8147762/]
• 53. Understanding and Improving Solid-Phase Extraction [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/understanding-and-improving-solid-phase-extraction-1]
• 54. Be Careful of the Flow Rate [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/be-careful-flow-rate]
• 55. Current advances and applications of online sample ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021967322001236]
• 56. How does flow rate impact flash chromatography results? [https://www.biotage.com/blog/how-does-flow-rate-impact-flash-chromatography-results]
• 57. Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9735147/]
• 58. Flow-Rate Adjustment and System Suitability [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/flow-rate-adjustment-and-system-suitability-0]
• 59. Flow analysis-solid phase extraction system and UHPLC-MS ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11324774/]
• 60. High Throughput Solid Phase Extraction and LC-MS ... [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/fi/en/library/application-notes/2025/high-throughput-solid-phase-extraction-and-lc-msms-determination-of-27-multiclass-synthetic-and-natural-steroidal-hormones-and-sterols-in-untreated-wastewater-samples-using-apci.html?srsltid=AfmBOopcwmosVDjFP4oNd_0HJCSSzSiLyfLFtVwt8ylYFm8ykKFcKdaK]
• 61. LC and LC-MS Column Clogging: Common Causes and ... [https://www.sepscience.com/lc-and-lc-ms-column-clogging-common-causes-and-proven-prevention-strategies-12010]
• 62. Solid-Phase Extraction: From Sample Prep Fundamentals ... [https://www.waters.com/blog/solid-phase-extraction-from-sample-prep-fundamentals-to-best-practices/?srsltid=AfmBOoqgqa-xANODqPDs0CKPrFQ0bK7AcOZARYtyIiTtVorrI_chwDli]
• 63. LC-MS Sample Preparation: Techniques & Challenges [https://opentrons.com/applications/lc-ms-sample-preparation?srsltid=AfmBOop1pJIBirALxxZuCJj39i_1vzDQfbv51weRdNvDfICVFaV1HIvA]
• 64. Optimizing Sample Preparation for DIA Proteomics: Best Practices [https://www.creative-proteomics.com/ngpro/resource-sample-preparation-for-dia-proteomics.html]
• 65. Solid Phase Extraction Techniques Explained [https://www.phenomenex.com/Techniques/Solid-Phase-Extraction?culture=pt&srsltid=AfmBOorvriYO51BZcWQu21jP3EEY79HqDaxsDPWiDOYbUCSZMTWFz5iN]
• 66. How can I prevent clogging of QIAfilter cartridges? [https://www.qiagen.com/us/resources/faq/1060]
• 67. Strategies for the Detection and Elimination of Matrix ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/strategies-detection-and-elimination-matrix-effects-quantitative-lc-ms-analysis]
• 68. Compensate for or Minimize Matrix Effects? Strategies ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7412464/]
• 69. Advanced Strategies to Improve Detection Limits in ... [https://www.organomation.com/advanced-strategies-to-improve-detection-limits-in-chromatography-mass-spectrometry]
• 70. Optimization of solid phase extraction for simultaneous ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1539932/full]
• 71. Optimization and validation of an extraction method for the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021967323005125]
• 72. Optimizing LC‑MS/MS Sensitivity: Strategies to Overcome ... [https://biotech-spain.com/en/articles/optimizing-lc-ms-ms-sensitivity-strategies-to-overcome-ion-suppression-and-boost-robustness-in-bioanalysis/]
• 73. New Sample Preparation Products and Accessories for ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/new-sample-preparation-products-and-accessories-for-2024-2025]
• 74. Solid-Phase Extraction: From Sample Prep Fundamentals ... [https://www.waters.com/blog/solid-phase-extraction-from-sample-prep-fundamentals-to-best-practices/?srsltid=AfmBOoo3d4u-G78oYVkdmujSeMigPyfbbY2sqHCv0gHX5rg8xbmTM9Ha]
• 75. Systematic Assessment of Matrix Effect, Recovery, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12613129/]
• 76. Innovative Solid-Phase Extraction Strategies for Improving ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11124106/]
• 77. Demonstrating the application of a liquid chromatography ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ay/d5ay01057h]
• 78. Supported Liquid Extraction (SLE): The Best Kept Secret in ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/supported-liquid-extraction-sle-best-kept-secret-sample-preparation]
• 79. When should I choose SLE or SPE for sample cleanup? [https://www.biotage.com/blog/when-should-i-choose-sle-or-spe-for-sample-cleanup]
• 80. The future of clinical sample preparation [https://myadlm.org/cln/cln-industry-insights/2025/the-future-of-clinical-sample-preparation]
• 81. A Comparison of Sample Preparation Techniques for ... [https://www.restek.com/global/en/articles/a-comparison-of-sample-preparation-techniques-for-drugs-of-abuse-in-oral-fluid?srsltid=AfmBOopRtOJtkESIVn4iMFHkTqcqUJaQ_eS1eO7ESfsyPyqZgrj1XLAB]
• 82. Examining chemical space coverage of solid phase ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969725022466]
• 83. Evaluating Novel Direct Injection Liquid Chromatography ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12604029/]
• 84. PROTEOMICS AND METABOLOMICS SAMPLE ... [https://www.aurorabiomed.com/proteomics-and-metabolomics-sample-preparation-redefined-meet-versa-1100-spe-by-aurora-biomed/?srsltid=AfmBOoqU8iN0JVwsynczYSe6bWh8kgPpJFXY2e36R7pDrBo4oqwPBWec]
• 85. Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) System Analysis Report 2025 [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/solid-phase-extraction-spe-system-220248]