In the world of analytical chemistry, the focus often falls on cutting-edge instrumentation and groundbreaking analytical techniques. However, a crucial yet frequently overlooked aspect of the analytical process is sample preparation. Recent research into university laboratory practices and costs reveals that sample preparation is not only time-consuming but also represents a significant portion of analytical expenses. This article delves into the importance of efficient sample preparation and how tools like Organomation's blowdown evaporators can revolutionize laboratory workflows.<h3>The True Cost of Sample Preparation</h3>To understand the value of sample preparation time, we took a look at what an average American university lab charges for their sample preparation services. Our findings from the University of Kansas paint a clear picture of the resources dedicated to this critical step:<ol><li>&nbsp;Sample Preparation Charges:</li></ol><ul><li>Internal Users are charged $76 per sample</li><li>External Users are charged $118 per sample</li></ul><ol start="2"><li>Analytical Instrumentation Time:</li></ol><ul><li>Internal Users are charged $30 per hour</li><li>External Users are charged $47 per hour</li></ul>These figures demonstrate that sample preparation costs are comparable to, and in some cases exceed, the hourly rates for using advanced analytical instruments. This underscores the significant value placed on sample preparation by research institutions.<h3>Time: The Hidden Resource</h3>Beyond monetary costs, time is perhaps the most critical resource in laboratory settings. Our research indicates that sample preparation typically consumes over two-thirds of the total analysis time in many analytical procedures. This disproportionate time allocation can create <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/is-removing-solvent-from-test-tubes-slowing-your-research">bottlenecks in research workflows</a>, potentially delaying important discoveries and slowing down scientific progress.<h3>The Ripple Effect of Inefficient Sample Preparation</h3>Inefficient sample preparation techniques, such as<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/how-much-time-is-wasted-preparing-individual-sample-vials-infographic"> drying down sample vials one at a time</a>, can have far-reaching consequences:<ol><li>Reduced sample throughput</li><li>Increased risk of sample contamination or loss</li><li>Greater variability in results due to inconsistent preparation methods</li><li>Less time available for data analysis and interpretation</li><li>Delayed publication of research findings</li></ol><h3>Transforming Workflows with Efficient Sample Preparation</h3>Investing in efficient sample preparation techniques, such as <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?category=362&amp;instrumentationItems=10&amp;manufacturerItems=540">Organomation's blowdown evaporators</a>, can yield significant benefits:<ul><li>Time Savings: Simultaneous processing of multiple samples dramatically reduces overall preparation time.</li><li>Improved Consistency: Automated systems ensure uniform treatment of all samples, enhancing reproducibility.</li><li>Resource Optimization: Researchers can reallocate saved time to higher-value activities such as data analysis or method development.</li><li>Cost-Effectiveness: While there's an initial investment, efficient preparation techniques can lead to long-term cost savings through increased productivity.</li><li>Enhanced Research Quality: More time for careful analysis and interpretation can lead to more robust and impactful research outcomes.</li></ul><h3> Case Study: University of Cincinnati's Transition to Automated Sample Drying</h3>The Department of Chemical &amp; Environmental Engineering at the University of Cincinnati faced a common challenge in their analysis of environmental samples for organic pollutants: the need for <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/manual-to-automated-solvent-drying-is-it-worth-the-switch">efficient sample concentration prior to LC-MS analysis</a>. Their workflow involved processing batches of 10 samples, each containing 5 mL of methanol or acetonitrile that needed to be evaporated to complete dryness.<h4>The Challenge</h4>Initially, the lab relied on a makeshift evaporation setup in their fume hood due to budget constraints. This manual method had several drawbacks:<ul><li>It took over 2 hours to dry down each sample, and not to complete dryness.</li><li>Only one sample could be processed at a time, creating a significant bottleneck.</li><li>The process lacked precision and control, potentially affecting result consistency.</li></ul><h4>The Solution: Organomation's N-EVAP Nitrogen Evaporator</h4>With some end-of-year budget available, the lab invested in a <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1908">12-position N-EVAP nitrogen evaporator from Organomation</a>. This decision led to immediate and substantial improvements:<ul><li>Dramatic Time Savings: Evaporation time was reduced from over 20 hours for a batch of 10 samples to just 1 hour - a 20x improvement in efficiency.</li><li>Increased Capacity: The ability to process up to 12 samples simultaneously eliminated the previous bottleneck.</li><li>Enhanced Precision: Individual adjustment of flow rate and needle height for each sample allowed for consistent and controlled evaporation.</li><li>Improved Results: The N-EVAP achieved complete dryness, enhancing the accuracy of low-concentration analyte detection.</li><li>Ease of Use: The system's simple design and unattended operation streamlined the process, reducing manual intervention and potential errors.</li></ul><h4>Key Factors in Efficiency Improvement</h4>The dramatic increase in efficiency was attributed to several factors:<ul><li>Batch Processing: The ability to evaporate multiple samples simultaneously.</li><li>Controlled Heating: Introduction of a gentle water bath (35°C) significantly increased evaporation rates.</li><li>Switch to Nitrogen Gas: Replacing compressed air with nitrogen resulted in approximately 10% faster evaporation.</li></ul>This case study demonstrates how transitioning from manual to automated sample drying can significantly enhance laboratory efficiency, particularly in academic settings where resources are often limited. The investment in appropriate equipment not only saved time but also improved the quality and consistency of research outcomes.<h3>Calculate Your Potential Time Savings</h3>To help researchers quantify the potential benefits of upgrading their sample preparation methods, Organomation offers a free, easy-to-use Evaporation Time Calculator. This valuable tool allows you to estimate how much time you could save by using an Organomation nitrogen evaporator instead of your current sample concentration procedure.Using the calculator is simple:<ol><li>Visit <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.organomation.com/evaporation-time-calculator">https://www.organomation.com/evaporation-time-calculator</a></li><li>Enter your starting sample volume</li><li>Input your desired ending volume</li><li>Select the solvent you're removing</li></ol>Within just one minute of submitting this information, you'll receive a customized estimate of your potential time savings. This instant feedback can help you make informed decisions about optimizing your laboratory's workflow.We encourage all researchers to take advantage of this free tool. By seeing concrete numbers specific to your procedures, you can better understand the impact that efficient sample preparation techniques could have on your research productivity. Whether you're dealing with a handful of samples or managing high-throughput operations, the potential time savings could be substantial.<h3>The Value of Time in Analytical Chemistry</h3>Our research clearly demonstrates that sample preparation time is a valuable commodity in analytical chemistry. By adopting efficient preparation techniques, laboratories can:<ol><li>Increase sample throughput</li><li>Improve result consistency and reliability</li><li>Allocate more time to critical thinking and analysis</li><li>Potentially reduce overall costs</li><li>Accelerate the pace of scientific discovery</li></ol>As analytical chemistry continues to advance, it's crucial not to overlook the foundational steps of the process. Investing in efficient sample preparation techniques, such as Organomation's blowdown evaporators, can unlock new levels of productivity and innovation in laboratory settings.By recognizing the true value of sample preparation time and taking steps to optimize this process, researchers can ensure they're making the most of their resources and pushing the boundaries of scientific discovery. Remember, in the world of analytical chemistry, time saved in sample preparation is time gained for critical thinking, data analysis, and advancing scientific knowledge. Take the first step towards optimizing your workflow by using Organomation's <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.organomation.com/evaporation-time-calculator">Evaporation Time Calculator today</a>.

How Ineffective Sample Preparation is Costing Academic Researchers

Each SPE mechanism/phase has a general set of solvent conditions under which SPE may be performed. Use the solvents/pH conditions listed below, volumes as determined in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://discover.phenomenex.com/0623-spe-technical-tip-part2-en?elqTrackId=E9D53E5725E641C0655E0409B9A065B7&amp;elq=00000000000000000000000000000000&amp;elqaid=4878&amp;elqat=2&amp;elqCampaignId=&amp;elqak=8AF59AC35AC6CFF8178E68A8DF72C3B8D482CF7C906A90E1BF5C55FDC1EA7D8B80B0">Method and Sorbent Volume Selection</a>.<h4>Reversed Phase SPE Method</h4><h5>Sorbent - SDB-L, C18, C8, PH, CN, X, XL</h5><ul><li>Analyte Properties: Low to moderate polarity (or nonpolar) Hydrophobic Neutralized/uncharged – Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides, Herbicides</li><li>Sample/Matrix: Aqueous, diluted with buffer – Biological fluids, Water</li><li>Conditioning Step<ul><li>Solvation – polar organic solvents – Methanol</li><li>Equilibration – aqueous, buffers – Water or buffer</li></ul></li><li>Wash Step: Aqueous buffers with 5 to 50 % polar organic solvent – Methanol:Water (5:95)</li><li>Elution Step: Polar or non-polar organic solvent(s) with or without water, buffer and/or strong acid or base – Methanol:Acetonitrile (50:50)</li></ul><h4>Normal Phase SPE Method</h4><h5>Sorbent - Silica, Florisil®, NH2, CN</h5><ul><li>Analyte Properties: Moderate to high polarity compounds (neutralized/uncharged) – Pesticides</li><li>Sample/Matrix: Non-polar organic solvents or moderately polar organic solvents – Hexane, chloroform, petroleum ether, toluene or methylene chloride</li><li>Conditioning Step<ul><li>Solvation – polar organic solvents (optional) – Methanol (optional)</li><li>Equilibration – sample/matrix solvent – Hexane or chloroform</li></ul></li><li>Wash Step: Non-polar organic solvents with a low concentration (1 to 5 %) of moderate to low polarity organic solvents – Hexane with 1 % THF, ethyl acetate, acetone, acetonitrile or IPA</li><li>Elution Step: Non-polar organic solvents containing higher concentrations (5 to 50 %) of moderate to high polarity organic solvents – Hexane with 10 % THF, ethyl acetate, acetone, acetonitrile or IPA</li></ul><h4>Strong Ion-Exchange SPE Method</h4><h5>Sorbet:&nbsp;Anion exchange: Screen-A, SAX, X-A, X-AW, XL-A, XL-AW Cation exchange: Screen-C, SCX, X-C, X-CW, XL-C, XL-CW</h5><ul><li>Analyte Properties: Ionized/charged compounds – Anion exchange: Acidic analytes Cation exchange: Basic drugs</li><li>Sample/Matrix: Aqueous; Low ionic strength buffers (&gt;30 mM), pH adjusted – Biological fluids plus buffer</li><li>Conditioning Step<ul><li>Conditioning – polar organic solvents – Methanol</li><li>Equilibration – low ionic strength buffers, pH adjusted – 25 mM Tris-OAc, pH 7</li></ul></li><li>Wash Step: Aqueous buffers of low salt concentrations with or without organic solvent<ul><li>Anion exchange: Buffer pH 7: Methanol (50:50)</li><li>Cation exchange:<ul><li>Buffer pH 6</li><li>1 M acetic acid</li><li>3. Methanol</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>Elution Step:<ul><li>Neutralize the charge on the weak anion or cation</li><li>Increase the ionic strength and counter ion concentration</li><li>Add a strong counter ion displacer<ul><li>Anion exchange: Hexane:ethyl acetate (75:25) + 1 % glacial acetic acid</li><li>Cation exchange: Methanol + 5 % NH₃</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><blockquote>NOTE: These are general starting conditions. Please <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://discover.phenomenex.com/customersupportEU?elqTrackId=9FD41A83311DD308567C001F2CC9485A&amp;elq=00000000000000000000000000000000&amp;elqaid=4878&amp;elqat=2&amp;elqCampaignId=&amp;elqak=8AF530A7A08EE95226A9F3C49828A74B76F7CF7C906A90E1BF5C55FDC1EA7D8B80B0">contact </a>your Phenomenex technical consultant for more assistance.</blockquote>

Generic SPE Method by Retention Mechanism

HPLC gradients are a fantastic means of analyzing a sample for which the analytes exhibit a wide range of retentive strengths along the stationary-phase of your preferred column. Gradients are not always accommodating towards buffers when attempting to maintain a specific pH. If the buffer is limited to your aqueous mobile-phase while the organic mobile-phase remains strictly an organic solvent, then the gradient is prone to solubility limitations and inconsistent buffering strength as the ratio of organic solvent increases during the gradient. This may be overcome by applying an even distribution of the buffer towards both the “weak” and “strong” mobile-phases of your method, for which we will review some approaches and examples.How about spiking both the “weak” and “strong” mobile-phases with an acidic or basic additive, such as the formic acid (HCO2H) at 0.1% (v/v)?The spike in both mobile-phases will ideally maintain a consistent level of the additive in the overall mobile-phase as the ratio of “weak” and “strong” mobile-phases alters during the gradient. The shortcomings of such a spike are that the additive may be prone to volatilization from the mobile-phase mixture, while also inducing inconsistent strengths of protonation or deprotonation towards analytes. Perhaps some of us can admit to having been less than precise in our preparation of (v/v) spikes at one time or another. Alternatively, a proper buffer with the corresponding salt for a specific additive will precisely maintain the consistent pH at which it is prepared without the risk of the additive volatilizing.Ammonium formate (NH4HCO2) and ammonium acetate (NH4CH3CO2) buffers are the most amenable towards gradients, as these salts are soluble in methanol, while the corresponding aqueous buffers may be mixed with high ratios of acetonitrile. The necessary buffering strength typically ranges only 5 – 10 mM in each mobile-phase, but compare this with an isocratic method of 60:40 “20 mM buffer”/acetonitrile, for which the buffer concentration relative to the overall mobile-phase is only 12 mM. Figure 1 features an analysis of Mycotoxins on a <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1514">Kinetex™ Biphenyl</a> with 5 mM ammonium acetate buffers comprising both the aqueous and methanol mobile-phases, and for which the ammonium acetate was dissolved directly in the methanol.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_The_effects_of_gradient_on_buffer_capacity_3_788ba526cf.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: The effects of gradient on buffer capacity: Figure 1 - Mycotoxin Analysis on Kinetex Biphenyl (App ID 21951)." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_The_effects_of_gradient_on_buffer_capacity_3_788ba526cf.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="904" height="475">Acetonitrile will need to be mixed with an aqueous buffer of common buffering reagents to maintain the solubility of the buffering salt. Figure 2 features the HILIC-mode analysis of underivatized amino acids on a <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1542">Biozen™ Glycan</a>, for which a stock buffer of 100 mM ammonium formate buffer (pH 3.1) was spiked into either water or acetonitrile in a 9:1 ratio of solvent/buffer. The resulting mobile phases each featured overall buffer concentrations of 10 mM ammonium formate, allowing the gradient to maintain a consistent overall buffering strength.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_The_effects_of_gradient_on_buffer_capacity_2_bb25c9ae6a.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: The effects of gradient on buffer capacity: Figure 2 - Underivatized Amino Acids on bioZen Glycan (Tech Note 1264)." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_The_effects_of_gradient_on_buffer_capacity_2_bb25c9ae6a.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="987" height="486">Ammonium fluoride (NH4F) is often included in small amounts (0.1 – 0.2 mM) in the overall mobile-phase to generate highly sensitive fluoride adducts [M+F]- during ESI-negative mode LC/MS, or to encourage the generation of either [M+H]+ or [M+NH4]+ ions in ESI-positive mode. Figure 3 demonstrates the use of a third solvent line by which a 1 mM NH4F buffer is constantly delivered at a ratio of 10% of the overall mobile-phase, corresponding to 0.1 mM in the overall mobile-phase throughout the gradient. Ternary and quaternary pumps facilitate this method, but an initial isocratic hold is recommended at the beginning of the method to accommodate the transferability of the method among instruments. Ternary and quaternary gradients are subject to dwell volumes that are specific to each instrument, and can be a concern even when one of the solvent lines is maintained at a constant percentage of the overall gradient.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_The_effects_of_gradient_on_buffer_capacity_dd2c7475e7.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: The effects of gradient on buffer capacity: Figure 3 - Microcystins on Luna Omega Polar C18 (App ID 23568)." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_The_effects_of_gradient_on_buffer_capacity_dd2c7475e7.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="1071" height="550">Be mindful of solubility considerations when attempting to incorporate either ammonium bicarbonate buffers or phosphate buffers into a gradient, particularly when working with phosphate buffers. These buffers run the risk of precipitation when blended with high percentages of organic solvents, and a solubility study is recommended. Lastly, be sure to include your intended mobile-phase buffer as a portion of your sample diluent to align the pH of your mobile phase, which will benefit the peak shape and reproducibility. Using a gradient where the mobile phase has a consistent buffering strength and pH value will ultimately improve the reproducibility of the LC method.

The effects of gradient on buffer capacity

Normal phase SPE uses polar interactions as retention mechanism. These interactions include hydrogen bonding, dipole-dipole, induced dipole, π-π, etc. The interactions are between polar functional groups of analytes and polar sorbent chemistries.Reversed phase uses nonpolar, hydrophobic interactions as retention mechanism. These interactions include Van-der-Waals, London dispersion, π-π, etc. These interactions are between carbon rich, hydrophobic parts of both analytes and sorbent.When dealing with sample matrices that are only soluble in organic solvents, one would use a normal phase method. Examples of such matrices are oil, grease, or butter.Ideally, the sample is diluted with a nonpolar solvent (i.e. hexane) prior to sample loading. The sample can then be washed with hexane or 5% methylene chloride in hexane (analogous to washing with 5% MeOH in water in RP SPE methods to remove matrix interferences). Elution will be done with a polar solvent that can interrupt polar interactions between analytes and sorbent.Fractionation can be done by applying solvents in the order of increasing polarity or mixtures of solvents with different polarities.Below is a quick reference of solvents in ascending polarity, for Normal Phase SPE methods.<h3>Solvents in Polarity Order</h3><h5>From low to high&nbsp;</h5><ul><li>Hexane</li><li>Isooctane</li><li>Carbon tetrachloride</li><li>Toluene</li><li>Benzene</li><li>t-butyl methyl ether</li><li>Chloroform</li><li>Dichloromethane</li><li>Diethyl ether</li><li>Ethyl acetate</li><li>Tetrahydrofuran (THF)</li><li>Acetone</li><li>Acetonitrile</li><li>40% MeOH in acetonitrile</li><li>20% MeOH in diethyl ether</li><li>20% MeOH in dichloromethane</li><li>Isopropanol</li><li>Methanol</li><li>Water</li><li>Acetic acid</li></ul>

How is normal phase (NP) SPE different from reversed phase (RP) SPE? How do I decide which one to use?

When looking at data generated from HPLC analysis, it is natural to focus on retention time, peak asymmetry and efficiency. These parameters will allow the user to identify and quantify analytes: the more precise this information is the greater the confidence in peak identity and analyte concentration.Capacity factor is often an overlooked parameter of separations, but when utilized correctly can guide the user to produce more robust methodology. The capacity factor serves to normalize the retention time of an analyte to the dimensions of the analytical column, and is defined as:<h5 style="text-align:center;">K’ = tr - t0/t0</h5>Where tr is the retention time of the analyte, and t0 the elution time of an unretained compound.The importance of capacity factor can best be illustrated by an example: &nbsp;<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_How_can_capacity_factors_drive_method_robustness_2_f6553ef593.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: How can capacity factors drive method robustness? 1. Oxalic acid, 2. Tartaric acid, 3. Glycolic acid, 4. Formic acid, 5. Pyruvic acid, 6. Malonic acid, 7. Acetic acid, 8. Maleic acid, 9. Citric acid." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_How_can_capacity_factors_drive_method_robustness_2_f6553ef593.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="547" height="345">Here we have a separation of organic acids, run on a C18 column which is stable to 100% aqueous conditions. The mobile phase is 20 mM potassium phosphate buffer at pH 2.9, with a flow rate of 0.7 ml/min. At first glance oxalic acid is retained at almost 4 minutes, but upon looking at this a little more closely the t0 for this column is approximately 3.7 minutes. When this is considered it is clear that oxalic acid, a very polar diacid, is barely retained by the column at all.<h5 style="text-align:center;">K’ = 3.9 - 3.7/3.7 = 0.054</h5>This indicates that oxalic acid spends almost no time associating with the stationary phase during its transit through the column. In such cases analyte retention will be greatly influenced by small, unintentional changes in parameters including:<ul><li>Mobile phase composition</li><li>Mobile phase pH</li><li>Sample diluent strength</li><li>Temperature</li></ul>Such a method is therefore unlikely to be robust, with oxalic acid retention varying from run to run, column to column and from one batch of mobile phase to another.This leads to the recommendation, whenever methods are being developed, that capacity factors should lie in the range of 2 - 10. We have seen the potential for problems with capacity factors of less than 2, but why stop at a capacity factor of 10?During an isocratic run, peak width increases with increasing retention time due to diffusion. Whilst the use of smaller particle columns and optimal flow rates will help to reduce this diffusion, it cannot be eliminated. Additionally, high capacity factors ultimately result in long run times, which are generally undesirable in a productive laboratory environment.&nbsp;<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_How_can_capacity_factors_drive_method_robustness_22b7c55c44.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: How can capacity factors drive method robustness? 1. Hydrocortisone, 2. Corticosterone, 3. 11-a-Hydroxyprogesterone, 4. Cortisone acetate, 5. 11-Ketoprogesterone." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_How_can_capacity_factors_drive_method_robustness_22b7c55c44.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="685" height="339">Here we have an example of steroids run on a 150 x 4.6 mm column at 1 ml/min. 11-etoprogesterone elutes at around 17.5 minutes, with a capacity factor of approximately 10.6. Peak broadening is evident in this isocratic run, indicating that the latest eluting peak is being retained on column for an excessive period of time.Understanding the guideline (capacity factors of between 2 and 10) is helpful, but leaves us with the question, how can they be adjusted?The capacity factor is inversely related to the elutropic strength of the mobile-phase. A higher elutropic strength will lower the capacity factor, and vice versa. When low capacity factors cannot be increased by reducing the elutropic strength of the mobile phase then it may be necessary to switch to a stationary phase that can offer greater retention of the analytes, for example by using a more polar stationary phase for polar analytes.

How can capacity factors drive method robustness?

When considering the mass of sorbent required to perform a solid phase extraction it is critical to consider the sample matrix (serum, plasma, urine, saliva, food, river water, soil etc). This information will allow you, with the use of a suitable look up table to determine the mass of SPE sorbent to use. The tables are produced to reflect the relative levels of interfering endogenous material present in the samples.&nbsp;The SPE device must have enough capacity to retain all analytes of interest together with any endogenous materials capable of retaining on the sorbent with the same type of interactions as the analyte. If there is insufficient sorbent, it is possible some analyte may pass unretained through the SPE device during sample loading, leading to lower recoveries and a loss of consistency of recovery between samples.<h3>Sample Volume</h3><h4>Determines Bed Mass/ Solvent Volumes</h4><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_How_much_sample_can_I_load_onto_my_SPE_device_Is_it_linked_to_the_concentration_of_my_analyte_of_interest_12a9ab171c.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: How much sample can I load onto my SPE device? Is it linked to the concentration of my analyte of interest?" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_How_much_sample_can_I_load_onto_my_SPE_device_Is_it_linked_to_the_concentration_of_my_analyte_of_interest_12a9ab171c.jpg 154w," sizes="100vw" width="983" height="992"><h3>Generic Loading Capacities:</h3><h4>Polymeric: 10 - 15% of Total Bed Mass | Silica: 5% of Total Bed Mass</h4>If we compare plasma and urine, we can load 500 µl of plasma onto a 60 mg polymeric sorbent such as <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?manufacturerItems=50&amp;search=Strata-X">Strata™-X</a>. Using the same 60 mg SPE tube 2 mL of urine could be loaded, indicating that urine contains significantly less endogenous material than plasma.For sample types not included in the table, the use of generic loading capacity, 5% of sorbent mass for silica materials, or 10-15% for polymeric materials are advised. The difference between silica and polymeric sorbent loading capacity is a function of available surface area, which is higher for polymeric materials and also ligand density – the entire surface of a polymeric material is essentially stationary phase, while on a silica material only the phase bonded to the silica takes part in the extraction mechanism for reversed phase or ion exchange extractions.

How much sample can I load onto my SPE device? Is it linked to the concentration of my analyte of interest?

Silica used to pack HPLC columns is a polymer of silicon and oxygen with Si-OH groups (silanols) at the surface. To these silanols, functional groups are bonded using a silane reagent to functionalize the base media.When HPLC columns are functionalized, it is impossible to ensure 100% phase coverage and react all available silanol groups (free hydroxyls on the surface of the silica) with the bonded phase. Sterically, as you begin to bond a phase you increase the hindrance to bonding making subsequent bonding stages more difficult than the previous ones.Without end-capping, a column would be left with significant numbers of accessible, highly active residual silanols which have the potential to alter the selectivity of the stationary phase. These residual groups have the potential to form strong ionic and polar interactions (often called “secondary interactions”) with polar and basic groups on the compounds introduced to them. So, reducing the number of free silanols after bonding the stationary phase through end-capping is imperative.Historically, end-capping was done with a small hydrophobic group, similar in nature to a trimethyl silane. In recent years several manufacturers have also introduced other groups to add a <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://app.explore.phenomenex.com/e/er?s=822460770&amp;lid=6998&amp;elqTrackId=D5A4A87A868E75FA6693FC5A1E9B3C89&amp;elq=00000000000000000000000000000000&amp;elqaid=5674&amp;elqat=2&amp;elqak=8AF5A07C3CDAC28222BF387672C6F595E7A5CF7C906A90E1BF5C55FDC1EA7D8B80B0&amp;_gl=1*edplpz*_ga*MTM5ODI2NzM3NS4xNzQyMjc3MDM0*_ga_790WGKEF4G*czE3NDk5ODYwMzUkbzI0JGcxJHQxNzQ5OTg3NjQwJGo2MCRsMCRoMA..">different selectivity element</a> to the column.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_The_Role_of_End_Capping_in_RP_a458911946.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: The Role of End-Capping in RP." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_The_Role_of_End_Capping_in_RP_a458911946.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="767" height="214">If the reagent used for end-capping contains charged functionality, for example, this will impart ion exchange functionality to the surface and give the column ion exchange properties together with the <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://app.explore.phenomenex.com/e/er?s=822460770&amp;lid=8525&amp;elqTrackId=63166B02CED6893A95911CAE6AA3AE95&amp;elq=00000000000000000000000000000000&amp;elqaid=5674&amp;elqat=2&amp;elqak=8AF5B477F9C56C31BC7CAC9FBFB946361A9ECF7C906A90E1BF5C55FDC1EA7D8B80B0&amp;_gl=1*edplpz*_ga*MTM5ODI2NzM3NS4xNzQyMjc3MDM0*_ga_790WGKEF4G*czE3NDk5ODYwMzUkbzI0JGcxJHQxNzQ5OTg3NjQwJGo2MCRsMCRoMA..">reversed phase</a> interactions from the C18 ligands. Likewise, a polar moiety will give polar characteristics to the surface.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_The_Role_of_End_Capping_in_RP_4_e1b1855040.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: The Role of End-Capping in RP." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_The_Role_of_End_Capping_in_RP_4_e1b1855040.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="786" height="246">Now that we have understood the role of end-capping, let’s review the main benefits of silica end-capping depending on the chemical groups used.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_The_Role_of_End_Capping_in_RP_3_be82757ab7.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: The Role of End-Capping in RP." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_The_Role_of_End_Capping_in_RP_3_be82757ab7.jpg 137w," sizes="100vw" width="640" height="728">In summary, new end-capping technologies can significantly improve the analysis of compounds that were once considered challenging. For example, nowadays, great peak shape and shorter run times can be achieved for the analysis of basic drugs using <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?category=341&amp;manufacturerItems=50&amp;search=ps">PS-C18 columns</a>. The <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?category=341&amp;manufacturerItems=50&amp;search=polar">Polar C18</a> chemistry has been proven to best retain compounds such as metabolites, and <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?category=341&amp;manufacturerItems=50&amp;search=XB">XB-C18</a> chemistry has shown excellent chromatography for peptide analysis, with enhanced retention of small polar peptides.

The Role of End-Capping in RP

<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?category=136&amp;manufacturerItems=50&amp;page=2">Solid phase extraction</a> is routinely selected as a sample preparation technique prior to HPLC and GC analysis. It provides:<ul><li>Clean-up;</li><li>Analyte pre-concentration;</li><li>Solvent switching.</li></ul>This works well for any homogeneous liquid samples, but clearly a solid sample cannot be applied directly to an SPE device. Here we will consider how best to approach the handling of solid samples prior to SPE.The first stage of sample pre-treatment involves homogenising the solid sample with a suitable solvent. The solvent selected for this purpose will:<ul><li>Be effective at solubilising the analyte.</li><li>Be effective at solubilising the sample matrix, although this is not necessary providing the sample is blended well with the solvent.</li><li>Ideally it will be a weak solvent when it comes to the SPE stage. This may not be possible, and it may be necessary to dry down and reconstitute the sample prior to loading on to the SPE cartridge.</li></ul>Having formed a suspension of the sample in a suitable solvent the sample should be vortexed to promote thorough mixing, and then centrifuged to pellet the insoluble components of the matrix. The solvent should then be removed for further treatment.At this point the SPE mechanism needs to be selected:&nbsp;<h3>Reversed Phase SPE Method</h3>Mechanism / Weak Solvent / Strong Solvent<ul><li>Reversed phase – Water/buffer – Acetonitrile/Methanol (hexane strongest)</li><li>Normal phase – Hexane/Heptane – Mid polar organic such as DCM, MTBE, IPA (strongest is water)</li><li>Ion exchange – Aqueous buffer at a pH which promotes ion exchange interactions between analyte and SPE sorbent – Organic solvent, typically methanol with pH adjustment to disrupt the ion exchange interactions.</li></ul>Analyte properties and sample diluent both need to be considered at this point. Reversed phase extractions are effective for moderately polar to moderately hydrophobic analytes, but only if they are dissolved in a weak solvent such as water. If the sample is dissolved in a mid-polar solvent the sample will either need to be diluted, or alternatively dried down and reconstituted. The same is true for normal phase, where samples need to be dissolved in hexane/heptane for analytes to be successfully retained during sample loading onto the SPE device.These examples will hopefully illustrate this concept.<h4>The extraction of PCBs from soil.</h4>PCBs are hydrophobic and will dissolve readily in a non-polar solvent. Soil can be dried, weighed and then extracted using hexane (or heptane). Once thoroughly mixed and centrifuged the resulting solution can be applied directed to a conditioned silica SPE tube allowing for a normal phase extraction to be conducted.<h4>Tylosin from meat.</h4>Tylosin is an antibiotic, with a log P of 1.0. Extracting from meat with a mixture of acetonitrile and water (80:20) will break any hydrophobic interactions releasing the tylosin. After centrifugation the resulting liquid sample will require further dilution with water to reduce the loading solvent strength prior to a reversed phase extraction.<h4>Enilconazole from oranges.</h4>Enilconazole is a fungicide widely used in agriculture and is often used with citrus fruits. It can readily be extracted from oranges using acetonitrile. As enilconazole is basic, the addition of HCl to the acetonitrile extract will promote protonation of the analyte, allowing for it to be directly retained on a strong cation exchange SPE material. This greatly simplifies the extraction process as no dilution of the sample is required (in contrast to reversed phase, or normal phase extraction where 100% acetonitrile would cause the analyte to be unretained during loading).

Considerations when working with solid samples and SPE

In this technical tip, we will address the common issue of peak tailing encountered when working with basic analytes and “type A” silicas and offer two strategies to overcome it.<h4>Introduction:</h4>Early reversed phase columns were based on “type A” silicas, these materials had substantial metal contamination, causing the silanol groups on the surface of the silica to have greater and more variable activity. Manufacturers endcapped the materials as far as possible after bonding with C18 reagents, in an attempt to reduce the number of sites where ion exchange could take place. However basic compounds would generally tail badly. Let’s explore how we can overcome this limitation.<h4>Strategies for peak shape improvement:</h4><ul><li>Working at low pH can help neutralise the silanol groups on the silica surface, preventing ion exchange from taking place. A 10-20 mM phosphate buffer, pH 2.5 is ideal for this purpose, although care must be taken if using acetonitrile as the organic solvent, to avoid precipitating the phosphate buffer when running a gradient.</li><li>Adding a competing base (or silanol suppressor) to the mobile phase. Mobile phase additives like TEA (triethylamine) at 5 mM concentration would typically be used. The idea here is that the competing base associates with the anionic silanol groups, reducing their availability to interact with analytes. This approach, whilst successful, generally leads to short column lifetime as silanol suppressors also tend to cause more rapid column stationary phase and endcapping hydrolysis, which in turn exposes more silica allowing for more tailing to occur.</li></ul>These strategies will help diminish the tailing effect but may not completely remove it as demonstrated in the below example chromatograms (Figure A and B).<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Phenomenex_Overcoming_Peak_Tailing_of_Basic_Analytes_in_Silica_Type_A_Stationary_Phases_in_RP_4c1effe7d3.jpg" alt="Phenomenex: Overcoming Peak Tailing of Basic Analytes in Silica Type A Stationary Phases in RP: A) Mobile Phase: 20 mM potassium phosphate buffer pH= 2.5 : Methanol (70:30) Flow rate: 1 mL/min Detection: UV-Vis @254 nm; B) Mobile Phase: 20 mM potassium phosphate buffer pH= 3 with 400uL/L Triethylamine : Acetonitrile (63:37) Flow rate: 1 mL/min Detection: UV-Vis @230 nm." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Phenomenex_Overcoming_Peak_Tailing_of_Basic_Analytes_in_Silica_Type_A_Stationary_Phases_in_RP_4c1effe7d3.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="939" height="332">Figure A shows the moderate effect of using an acidic pH to mitigate tailing for benzylamine, while Figure B shows the resulting chromatography after adding triethylamine as a modifier.<blockquote>We recommend the use of type B (ultra-pure) silica in the development of new separations. <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?category=341&amp;manufacturerItems=50&amp;search=omega">Luna™ Omega</a> fully porous and <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?category=339&amp;manufacturerItems=50&amp;search=Kinetex">Kinetex™ Core-Shell</a> columns provide excellent peak shape for challenging compounds.</blockquote>

Overcoming Peak Tailing of Basic Analytes in Silica Type A Stationary Phases in RP

Due to their nature, bioanalytical samples often require a pretreatment step prior to further cleanup by solid phase extraction (SPE). Each sample matrix poses its own unique challenges such as the removal of proteins from plasma and serum, the disruption of red blood cells in whole blood, hydrolysis of glucuronidated analytes in urine, and homogenization of tissue samples. This technical note outlines common sample pre-treatment procedures for bioanalytical samples.<h4>Plasma/Serum</h4>Plasma and serum pre-treatments are analyte dependent. If the analyte of interest is an acid, 2 % phosphoric acid can be used (20 µL 85 % H3PO4 to 1 mL of plasma or serum) to disrupt the drug-protein interaction. If the analyte of interest is basic, 0.1 M sodium hydroxide can be used to disrupt the drug-protein interaction. After addition of acid or base, the sample should be vortexed for 20-30 seconds followed by centrifugation. The supernatant is now ready for further analysis.<h4>Whole Blood</h4>There are several pre-treatment strategies that can be followed for whole blood. If the target analyte is present in red blood cells, a hemolysis step is necessary<ul><li>Hemolysis: To 0.2 mL whole blood (spiked with analytes and internal standard) in a 1.2 mL centrifuge tube, add 400 µL of 2 % zinc sulfate/80 % methanol. Vortex for 10-20 seconds followed by centrifugation at 14,000 rpm for 10 minutes. Collect the supernatant for further analysis. Preparation of zinc sulfate/methanol: Into a 100 mL volumetric flask add 20 mL water and 3.6 g ZnSO4, 7H2O. After the solution is clear and the salt crystals have dissolved, add 100 % methanol. Refrigerate the solution at 2-8 °C for 7 days.</li><li>Osmotic breakdown: To 1 mL of whole blood add internal standard and 4 mL of distilled water. Mix/vortex and let stand for 5 minutes. Centrifuge at 670 g for 10 minutes and discard the pellet. Adjust the pH of the supernatant accordingly with the addition of a buffer solution.</li><li>Sonication: Sonicate 1 mL whole blood for 15 minutes at room temperature. Add 3-6 mL of an appropriate pH buffer (such as potassium phosphate buffer). Mix/vortex. Let stand for 5 minutes. Centrifuge at 670 g for 15 minutes. Analyze supernatant.</li></ul>Note: A comparison of the above pre-treatment techniques for whole blood was performed for acidic, basic, and neutral drugs. Recoveries were generally the highest when the whole blood sample was diluted with buffer and subjected to physical denaturing (sonication) rather than chemical means. In fact, the sonication process disrupts the cell membranes to the extent that no clogging was observed when the procedure listed above was followed.1<h4>Saliva</h4>No hydrolysis is required for oral fluids and the generic protocol used for plasma/serum pre-treatment may be followed.<h4>Urine</h4>Enzymatic hydrolysis is necessary in case of conjugated forms (sulfated or glucuronide form) of the analyte present. Enzymatic hydrolysis requires specific pH (pH 4-5) and temperature ranges. An acid or base hydrolysis can be performed as well, depending on the stability of the compound.<ol><li>Enzymatic hydrolysis: To 500 µL sample (spiked with analyte and internal standard) add 100 µL acidic buffer (see below) and 20 µL beta-glucuronidase. Vortex for 5-6 seconds. Incubate in a water bath at 63 °C for 30 minutes. Transfer sample to a 96-well collection plate or autosampler vial. Seal and centrifuge for 10 minutes at 2,000 rpm. Preparation of acidic buffer (1.0 M acetate buffer, pH 4.0): Dissolve 3.0 g of glacial acetic acid and 4.1g of sodium acetate in a 1 L volumetric flask.</li><li>Base hydrolysis: To 1 mL urine (spiked with analyte and internal standard) add 100 µL 10 N KOH. Mix, vortex, and hydrolyze for 20 minutes at 60 ˚C. Cool and adjust pH to 3.5- 4.0 (by adding 200 µL glacial acetic acid).</li><li>Acid hydrolysis: To 1 mL urine add 0.25 mL HCl in a screw capped test tube. Screw the tube top on loosely and heat in a boiling water bath for 60 minutes. Adjust to pH 7 (or as needed) with 1.0 N NaOH.</li></ol><h4>Tissue</h4>Homogenize with organic or aqueous solvent depending upon analyte solubility. Settle, decant, centrifuge or filter supernatant. Perform direct Matrix Solid Phase Dispersion (MSPD) extraction on tissue.

Sample Pre-treatment Procedures for Bioanalytical Samples

Article

Product

Events

Webinars

Application

Academy

Video

Poster

Scientists

Plastics

Environment

Food

Water

Health

Presentation

Scientific article

Interview

Toxicology

Popularization

Science and research

Software

Covid-19

Career

Laboratories

Various

Zaměření

Type of News

Focus

Phenomenex is a global technology leader committed to developing novel analytical chemistry solutions that solve the separation and purification challenges of researchers in industrial, government and academic laboratories.

Phenomenex

Organomation, founded in 1959, designs and manufactures high-quality nitrogen evaporators and extraction systems. Known for innovation and durability, their lab instruments are used globally for efficient sample preparation with strong customer support.

Sample Pre-treatment Procedures for Bioanalytical Samples

Overcoming Peak Tailing of Basic Analytes in Silica Type A Stationary Phases in RP

Considerations when working with solid samples and SPE

The Role of End-Capping in RP

How much sample can I load onto my SPE device? Is it linked to the concentration of my analyte of interest?

How can capacity factors drive method robustness?

How is normal phase (NP) SPE different from reversed phase (RP) SPE? How do I decide which one to use?

The effects of gradient on buffer capacity

Generic SPE Method by Retention Mechanism

How Ineffective Sample Preparation is Costing Academic Researchers

Upcoming events

Understanding quantification algorithms

36th MassSpec Forum Vienna 2026

Analytical Strategies for Peptide & Protein Therapeutics

Webinars

High-throughput stability screening strategies for antibody formulation

Big Scale, Big Wins: Prep Chromatography Explained

PFAS in Food & Food Contact Material