<div><div><p><strong>Assoc. Prof. Jan Heyda from the Department of Physical Chemistry at UCT Prague leads the theoretical part of the project “Membraneless Organelles in Biological Environments”. His group uses molecular dynamics simulations to explore how intrinsically disordered proteins form condensates in cells. Together with Assoc. Prof. M. Vazdar, they systematically study the effects of ions, point mutations in proteins, and membrane composition on the formation, stability, and adsorption of these structures at the atomic level. The goal is to create a predictive map that will lead to better understanding of neurodegenerative diseases and development of smart biomaterials, in close collaboration with experiments by Professor Paul Cremer from Pennsylvania State University.</strong></p></div><div><h5><strong>What is your project about and what are your objectives?</strong></h5><p>Our project investigates how so-called membraneless organelles (MLOs) arise and function within cells. These are dynamic structures in which the cell temporarily concentrates selected proteins and RNA so that certain processes can proceed more rapidly and efficiently than in the surrounding environment. Unlike classical organelles, such as mitochondria or the nucleus, they are not bounded by a membrane, but arise through the self-organization of biomolecules into a denser phase — a so-called condensate.</p><p>In the project, we focus mainly on intrinsically <strong>disordered proteins </strong>that have the ability to form these condensates, but are also very sensitive to the composition of the solution, small changes in their sequence, and contact with biological membranes. The goal is to understand, at the molecular level, what controls the transition from freely dispersed molecules to a&nbsp;condensed state and when such a&nbsp;state is still functional or may already lead to pathological behaviour.</p><h5><strong>If the project is successful, what will it bring? How will it help in the fields of medicine or pharmacy?</strong></h5><p>This is still a&nbsp;basic research project, so its<strong> main contribution will be a&nbsp;deeper understanding of the behaviour of proteins in the biological environment</strong>. Such knowledge is important for research into neurodegenerative diseases, where certain proteins lose their native behaviour, but also generally for protein biophysics and the development of biomaterials or biotechnological applications. This is not a&nbsp;project that would immediately lead to new treatments, but it can contribute to ensuring that future, more targeted interventions are on a&nbsp;firmer scientific basis.</p><h5><strong>You lead the theoretical part. What is the nature of the experiments?</strong></h5><p>The experimental part takes place in<strong> Professor Paul Cremer’s&nbsp;group&nbsp;at Pennsylvania State University</strong>. His team prepares the polypeptides under study and monitors their behaviour in the presence of salts at various concentrations and/or on membrane surfaces. Using spectroscopic and thermodynamic methods, they determine under what conditions the condensates form, what their composition is, and how stable they are. The advantage of the project is that the experiments and simulations are designed from the outset to describe the same systems.</p><h5><strong>How did you get involved with the Cremer Group at Pennsylvania State University?</strong></h5><p>During my doctoral studies with <strong>Professor Pavel Jungwirth</strong>, I&nbsp;studied how the presence of ions affects the behaviour of biomolecules.<strong> Professor Cremer </strong>is one of the most prominent figures in this field, and our professional contact gradually developed into a&nbsp;long-term collaboration between experiment and theory. Within the framework of ion-specific effects, we moved from polymers and peptides toward the question of how protein condensates and membraneless organelles can be influenced.</p><h5><strong>How do&nbsp;the experiments differ from the simulations?</strong></h5><p>An experiment shows the overall behaviour of a&nbsp;system, but we often cannot directly discern the underlying molecular causes from it. Simulation allows us to look inside and observe which specific molecular interactions lead to this behaviour. In the experiment, thus, we see the result; in the simulation, its details. Each approach has its limits, but it is their combination that allows us to obtain a&nbsp;much more compelling and comprehensive picture than if we used only one of them.</p></div><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/VSCHT_Praha_Jan_Heyda_Molekularni_pohled_na_bezmembranove_organely_ve_spolupraci_s_USA_0e39e1232d.jpg" alt="VŠCHT Prague: Jan Heyda: Molecular view of membraneless organelles in collaboration with the USA" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_VSCHT_Praha_Jan_Heyda_Molekularni_pohled_na_bezmembranove_organely_ve_spolupraci_s_USA_0e39e1232d.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="1500" height="898"></p><h5><strong>How does the collaboration between the theorist and the experimenter proceed?</strong></h5><p>In the beginning, it is mostly about finding a&nbsp;common language, especially regarding complex topics. The theorist and the experimentalist view the same problem differently, and it takes some time for both to clarify what is realistic for the other. Once this is achieved, a&nbsp;truly strong collaboration begins to emerge: the experiment helps to anchor the simulations in reality, and the simulations, in turn, provide the experiments with a&nbsp;detailed, physically grounded molecular interpretation.</p><h5><strong>How did you get into physical chemistry and computer modelling?</strong></h5><p>I graduated from a <strong>mathematics-oriented high school in České Budějovice</strong> and enjoyed chemistry, mathematics and physics, so studying physical chemistry was a natural choice for me. I then came to computer simulations through statistical thermodynamics, when I realized that there were few problems that could be solved analytically. On the contrary, computer simulations allow us to assemble even very complicated systems, study them at a microscopic level, and arrive at a mechanistic understanding of key processes. I still enjoy that very much.</p><h5><strong>What shaped you into the scientist you are today?</strong></h5><p>Three things were crucial for me: the supportive environment in Professor Pavel Jungwirth’s&nbsp;group, my postdoctoral experience with <strong>Professor Dzubiella</strong>, and also the diverse collaborations, thanks to which I&nbsp;understood that the best results often arise from a&nbsp;combination of multiple perspectives that complement each other.</p><h5><strong>What convinced the grant review committee to support your project?</strong></h5><p>The path to support was not entirely straightforward, but we gradually refined the proposal and strengthened it with preliminary results. I&nbsp;believe the decision was driven by the combination of a&nbsp;timely scientific topic, the strong connection between experiments and simulations, and a&nbsp;long-term collaboration that have already yielded concrete, high-quality results.</p><h5><strong>Who else are you collaborating with on the project?</strong></h5><p>On the Czech side, my key collaborator is <strong>Associate Professor Mario Vazdar</strong>, whose expertise covers the interactions of biomolecules with membranes. Members of our groups and doctoral students are also involved in the project.</p><h5><strong>How will you disseminate your project outputs?</strong></h5><p>We will share the results as is standard, in the form of peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. We plan to make the simulation data available only for selected systems due to their large volume (approx. 10&nbsp;GB per simulation). For other systems, we will provide the inputs, parameters, and analytical procedures that will allow our results to be reproduced or built upon.</p><h5><strong>Will you be communicating the results to the wider public?</strong></h5><p>Yes, definitely. Professional seminars, student theses, and presentations will be a&nbsp;natural part of the project, but we would also be happy to engage in outreach for the wider public.</p><h5><strong>Are you looking for students for this project? And if so, what kind?</strong></h5><p>Yes, we are looking for students. The project offers topics for doctoral students focused on computer modelling, as well as for students with an interest in experiments, thermodynamics, biophysics, or biochemistry. The breadth of the topic, the opportunity to work with modern methods, and the connection to international collaboration are all very attractive features.</p></div>

Jan Heyda: Molecular view of membraneless organelles in collaboration with the USA

<p><strong>The choice between micro-Snyder column concentration and </strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products?category=362&amp;manufacturerItems=540"><strong>nitrogen blowdown evaporation</strong></a><strong> represents one of the most critical decisions in EPA analytical methodology. Both techniques serve as validated concentration methods across numerous EPA test procedures, yet each offers distinct advantages that make them suitable for different analytical scenarios. Understanding these differences is essential for laboratories seeking to optimize their analytical workflows and ensure regulatory compliance.</strong></p><h3><strong>Understanding the Fundamentals</strong></h3><p>Both concentration techniques serve the same primary purpose: reducing extract volumes to levels suitable for instrumental analysis while maintaining analyte integrity. However, their operational principles differ significantly in terms of temperature requirements, operator involvement, and equipment specifications.</p><p>The micro-Snyder column technique utilizes controlled heat application through a hot water bath maintained at 60-65°C, with the distillation process regulated by the column's three-ball or two-ball design [1, 2]. The technique provides visual indicators of proper operation through actively chattering balls, which signal optimal distillation rates without chamber flooding [2]. In contrast, nitrogen blowdown operates at significantly lower temperatures of 30-35°C, using a gentle stream of filtered nitrogen to facilitate solvent evaporation [3, 4].</p><h3><strong>Widespread EPA Method Applications</strong></h3><h4><strong>Micro-Snyder Column Integration</strong></h4><p>The micro-Snyder column technique demonstrates remarkable ubiquity across EPA analytical methods, appearing as a standard procedure in numerous applications:</p><ul><li><strong>Water Analysis: EPA Method 625</strong> for base/neutral and acid extraction specifies the use of both three-ball macro-Snyder columns for initial concentration (15-20 minutes) and two-ball micro-Snyder columns for final concentration (5-10 minutes) [2]. The method requires pre-wetting columns with 0.5 mL of methylene chloride and maintaining proper distillation rates where "the balls of the column will actively chatter but the chambers will not flood with condensed solvent" [2].</li><li><strong>Organochlorine Analysis: EPA Method 610</strong> for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons incorporates micro-Snyder columns for both standard concentration and specialized solvent exchange procedures, including acetonitrile concentration at elevated temperatures of 95-100°C [5].</li><li><strong>Nitrosamine Detection:</strong> <strong>EPA Method 607</strong> utilizes micro-Snyder columns as part of its comprehensive extraction and concentration protocol, with specific volume adjustments to 2.0 mL following concentration [6].</li><li><strong>Advanced Extraction Methods:</strong> <strong>EPA Method 3570</strong> for microscale solvent extraction employs sequential micro-Snyder columns, using both three-ball and two-ball columns in series for optimal concentration control [1].</li></ul><h4><strong>Nitrogen Blowdown Applications</strong></h4><p><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/article/5392"><strong>Nitrogen blowdown evaporation </strong></a>has gained significant acceptance across EPA methodologies, particularly for applications requiring gentle thermal treatment:</p><ul><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.organomation.com/what-is-solid-phase-extraction-spe"><strong>Solid Phase Extraction</strong></a><strong>: EPA Method 3535A</strong> explicitly provides nitrogen evaporation as an alternative to micro-Snyder column concentration, recognizing both techniques as equally valid approaches. The method specifies operation in a warm water bath at 30°C with filtered nitrogen that has passed through activated carbon [3].</li><li><strong>Environmental Monitoring: EPA Method 1668</strong> for chlorinated biphenyl congeners incorporates nitrogen blowdown for micro-concentration procedures, utilizing water bath temperatures between 30-60°C . The method emphasizes the importance of controlled evaporation to prevent analyte degradation.</li><li><strong>Pesticide Analysis: EPA Method 1699</strong> for pesticides in environmental matrices specifies nitrogen blowdown procedures with water bath temperatures of 60°C, demonstrating the technique's versatility across different temperature ranges [7].</li><li><strong>PFAS Analysis:</strong> Modern EPA methods for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/concentrating-pfas-samples-ahead-of-lcms"><strong>Methods 533 and 537.1</strong></a>, rely heavily on nitrogen blowdown due to the thermal sensitivity of these emerging contaminants [8].</li></ul><h3><strong>Comparative Performance Analysis</strong></h3><h4><strong>Micro-Snyder Column Advantages</strong></h4><ul><li><strong>Standardized Reproducibility:</strong> The micro-Snyder column technique offers inherent standardization through its visual feedback mechanism. The actively chattering balls provide immediate indication of proper operation, reducing operator variability between laboratories [2]. This standardization has contributed to its widespread adoption across EPA methods spanning decades of regulatory use.</li><li><strong>Built-in Safety Features:</strong> The column design incorporates multiple safety elements, including automatic regulation of distillation rates and the 10-minute cooling and draining period that prevents rapid temperature changes [2]. These features minimize the risk of analyte loss due to operator error or equipment malfunction.</li><li><strong>Proven Regulatory Acceptance: </strong>The technique's inclusion in foundational EPA methods like 625, 610, and 607 demonstrates its long-standing regulatory acceptance and proven reliability across diverse analytical applications [2, 5, 6].</li><li><strong>Efficient Heat Transfer: </strong>The controlled temperature environment of 60-65°C provides efficient solvent evaporation while remaining below the degradation threshold for most organic compounds [1, 2].</li></ul><h4><strong>Nitrogen Blowdown Advantages</strong></h4><ul><li><strong>Temperature-Sensitive Analyte Preservation:</strong> Operating at 30-35°C, nitrogen blowdown provides gentler thermal treatment that preserves heat-sensitive compounds [3, 4]. This advantage is particularly crucial for emerging contaminants like PFAS, where thermal degradation can significantly impact analytical results [8].</li><li><strong>Precise Volume Control: </strong>The technique allows operators to achieve exact final volumes through visual monitoring, stopping evaporation at precisely the desired endpoint . This precision is valuable when specific concentration factors are required for regulatory compliance.</li><li><strong>Reduced Equipment Investment:</strong> Nitrogen blowdown requires minimal specialized glassware compared to <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1904"><strong>Kuderna-Danish</strong></a> apparatus with Snyder columns, making it accessible for laboratories with limited capital budgets [9].</li><li><strong>Enhanced Operator Control: </strong>The real-time monitoring capability allows operators to adjust evaporation rates and respond to unexpected conditions during the concentration process [9].</li></ul><h4><strong>Comparative Limitations</strong></h4><ul><li><strong>Micro-Snyder Column Challenges: </strong>The technique requires significant capital investment in specialized glassware and heating equipment [2]. Additionally, the automated nature of the process provides limited operator control once concentration begins, potentially problematic for samples requiring specific handling.</li><li><strong>Nitrogen Blowdown Limitations: </strong>The technique demands constant operator attention to prevent over-concentration, with organophosphorus pesticides being particularly susceptible to losses from complete dryness. Contamination risks from plastic tubing and the need for precise nitrogen flow control add complexity to routine operations [3].</li></ul><h3><strong>Method Selection Guidelines</strong></h3><h4><strong>Sample Throughput Considerations</strong></h4><p>High-volume environmental laboratories often favor micro-Snyder columns for their automated operation and reduced hands-on time requirements [2]. The technique allows multiple samples to be processed simultaneously with minimal operator intervention, improving laboratory productivity.</p><p>Conversely, laboratories processing smaller sample batches or requiring individual sample optimization may prefer <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1908"><strong>nitrogen blowdown's flexibility</strong></a> and precise control capabilities [9].</p><h4><strong>Analyte-Specific Requirements</strong></h4><p>Temperature-sensitive compounds, including many pharmaceutical residues and emerging contaminants, benefit from nitrogen blowdown's lower operating temperatures [8, 9]. The 30-35°C operating range significantly reduces thermal stress compared to the 60-65°C requirement for micro-Snyder columns [3].</p><p>For thermally stable environmental pollutants like polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and organochlorine compounds, both techniques provide equivalent performance with method selection based on operational preferences [5].</p><h4><strong>Regulatory Compliance Factors</strong></h4><p>Specific EPA methods may designate one technique over another, eliminating choice for particular analytical procedures. However, methods like EPA 3535A that offer both options allow laboratories to select based on their specific capabilities and quality control requirements [3].</p><h4><strong>Contemporary Applications and Future Trends</strong></h4><p>The analytical landscape continues evolving with emerging contaminants and advanced instrumentation. Nitrogen blowdown has gained particular prominence in PFAS analysis due to these compounds' thermal sensitivity and the need for trace-level detection [8]. This trend reflects the technique's adaptability to modern analytical challenges.</p><p>Simultaneously, micro-Snyder columns remain essential for established environmental monitoring programs where long-term data consistency requires standardized procedures [2]. The technique's proven track record supports its continued use in regulatory compliance monitoring.</p><h3><strong>Conclusion</strong></h3><p>Both micro-Snyder column concentration and nitrogen blowdown serve critical roles in EPA analytical methodology, with optimal selection depending on specific analytical requirements, laboratory capabilities, and regulatory constraints. The micro-Snyder column technique excels in standardized, high-throughput applications where proven reliability and regulatory acceptance are paramount. Nitrogen blowdown provides superior performance for temperature-sensitive analytes and applications requiring precise volume control.</p><p>Modern laboratories benefit from understanding both techniques' capabilities, allowing method selection based on analyte properties, sample characteristics, and operational requirements. As analytical chemistry continues advancing with new contaminants and detection challenges, both concentration methods will remain valuable tools in the environmental analyst's toolkit.</p><p>The choice between these techniques ultimately reflects the broader analytical strategy, balancing regulatory compliance, analytical performance, and operational efficiency to achieve reliable environmental monitoring results.</p>

Micro-Snyder Column vs Nitrogen Blowdown: Choosing the Right Concentration Method for EPA Applications

<p><strong>We are pleased to invite you to our upcoming free online webinar on June 11, 2026 focused on one of the most pressing challenges in environmental monitoring and water quality management — PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances).</strong></p><p>As regulatory frameworks continue to evolve and compliance deadlines approach, laboratories, water utilities, and environmental professionals need robust, reliable, and cutting-edge analytical solutions to stay ahead.</p><blockquote><p class="cke-user_style-important"><strong>👉</strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://events.teams.microsoft.com/event/91d97003-fe33-4dca-b80b-160d9f8a5655@485ca04e-6f74-4050-9764-cdb4bfa89c25"><strong>Registration HERE</strong></a></p></blockquote><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/ALS_analyzy_PFAS_a9e4a87fbc.jpg" alt="ALS: Advanced PFAS Analytical Services " srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_ALS_analyzy_PFAS_a9e4a87fbc.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="600" height="336"></p><h4><strong>🎤 Our Speaker</strong></h4><p>The webinar will be hosted by <strong>Jana Kováčová, Ph.D., PFAS Regional Lead for Continental Europe Environmental Division</strong>, who has dedicated the last several years to the field of PFAS analysis and determination in ALS laboratories. Jana is a recognized expert in PFAS environmental analytics and will share practical insights and the latest developments in analytical strategies to help your organization achieve and maintain compliance.</p><h4><strong>🎯 What You Will Learn</strong></h4><ul><li>Latest <strong>regulatory developments</strong> and compliance requirements for PFAS in water, including <strong>EU Drinking Water Directive 2020/2184</strong> and its implications for water suppliers and laboratories.</li><li><strong>Regulatory updates for surface water and groundwater</strong> — what's new and what to expect next.</li><li>Overview of <strong>advanced analytical strategies</strong> for PFAS detection and quantification in water matrices and how we analyse PFAS samples.</li><li>Key <strong>analytical challenges</strong> associated with PFAS testing — from ultra-trace detection to matrix interferences and contamination control.</li><li>The critical importance of using tested <strong>sampling containers</strong> and sample preservation to ensure reliable results.</li><li>Illustrative <strong>examples of results</strong> from real-world PFAS water analyses.</li><li>How ALS can support your needs with <strong>accredited PFAS testing services</strong>.</li></ul><h4><strong>👥 Who Should Attend</strong></h4><p>This webinar is designed for our clients, professionals, laboratory and technical staff, scientists, as well as anyone with an interest in analytical chemistry who wants to better understand the occurrence of these "forever chemicals" in the environment. &nbsp;</p><h4><strong>💬 Q&amp;A Session</strong></h4><p>There will be a live Q&amp;A session at the end of the webinar. You are welcome to submit your questions in advance during registration or ask them live on the day.</p><h4><strong>📅 Additional Webinar Info:</strong></h4><ul><li><strong>Platform: </strong>Microsoft Teams (online)</li><li><strong>Time: </strong>10:00 CEST</li><li><strong>Language: </strong>English</li><li><strong>Duration:</strong> approx. 45 - 60 minutes (incl. Q&amp;A)<br>Extras: If you are unable to attend on the day, please register and we will provide you with the recording of the webinar.</li></ul><h4><strong>🔬 About ALS Environmental</strong></h4><p>ALS is a global leader in environmental testing and analytical services, providing accredited PFAS analysis to clients across Europe and beyond. Our dedicated PFAS experts help clients navigate the complex regulatory landscape with confidence.</p><blockquote><p>For further information, please contact us on: <strong>marketing.cz@alsglobal.com</strong></p></blockquote><p>We look forward to welcoming you to this important discussion on PFAS compliance in water.</p>

Invitation to the ALS Webinar PFAS in Water 2026: Achieving Compliance through Advanced Analytical Strategies

Article

Product

Webinars

Academy

Video

Environment

Water

Science and research

For more than 40 years, ALS has provided testing and technical solutions to clients all over the world in a wide range of industries. We have built our global reputation by embracing the latest technologies and innovative methodologies to deliver high quality testing services to clients. ALS is able to leverage a multifaceted international team while remaining agile enough to provide local expertise and personalized solutions to every one of our clients.

ALS Czech Republic

The University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague is a natural centre of first-rate study and research in the area of chemistry in Czechia and is one of the country's largest educational and research institutions focused on technical chemistry, chemical and biochemical technologies, material and chemical engineering, food chemistry, and environmental studies.

UCT Prague

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.

Organomation

Bioanalytic Quantitative LC-MS/MS analysis training

The goal of the training is to introduce users to the procedures and capabilities of the LC-MS/MS system and software to achieve sensitivity, selectivity, precision and reproducibility in quantitative analysis.

<h4><strong>BASIC INFORMATION</strong></h4><ul><li>TITLE: <strong>Quantitative LC-MS/MS analysis training</strong></li><li>CATEGORY: <strong>LC-MS/MS training</strong></li><li>LOCATION: <strong>Lodz, PL</strong></li><li>TRAINING TIME: <strong>3 days</strong></li><li>NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: <strong>up to 5 people</strong></li><li>EQUIPMENT:<strong> SCIEX QTRAP LC-MS/MS</strong></li></ul><figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:1200/675;" src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Bioanalytic_Bioanalytic_Quantitative_LC_MS_MS_analysis_training_d13b5d8127.jpg" alt="Bioanalytic: Bioanalytic Quantitative LC-MS-MS analysis training." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Bioanalytic_Bioanalytic_Quantitative_LC_MS_MS_analysis_training_d13b5d8127.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="1200" height="675"></figure><h4><strong>TRAINING DESCRIPTION</strong></h4><p>Quantitative LC-MS/MS analysis - the training is designed for laboratory personnel using LC-MS/MS systems for quantitative analysis. The following topics are covered during the training:</p><ul><li>Triple quadrupole spectrometer calibration</li><li>MRM pair formation and optimization</li><li>Optimization of ion source parameters</li><li>Optimization of chromatographic parameters</li><li>Sample preparation using the example of blood drawn on <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1283"><strong>Mitra®</strong></a> samplers (VAMS)</li><li>Matrix effect, internal standards (ISTD), matrix curves</li><li>Validation of the quantitative method</li><li>Reporting of results</li></ul><p>The goal of the training is to introduce users to the procedures and capabilities of the LC-MS/MS system and software to achieve sensitivity, selectivity, precision and reproducibility in quantitative analysis while covering the widest possible linear range of concentrations.</p><h3><strong>Training program</strong></h3><h4><span style="font-size:20px;"><strong>Day I</strong></span></h4><h5><strong>Theoretical part:</strong></h5><p>Triple quadrupole structure, ionization, MRM and sMRM scanning, chromatography, multimethods</p><h5><strong>Practical part:</strong></h5><ul><li>Q1/Q3 calibration (10 Da/s), MS/MS - resolution, m/z, intensity.</li><li>MRM pair formation and optimization (manual, semi-automatic, automatic).</li><li>Ion source optimization - T-concector and FIA</li><li>Gradient vs isocrat, dosing, column selection, temperature selection, other important parameters</li><li>Establishment and optimization of LC-MS/MS method.</li><li>How to take care of MS cleanliness - ionization time programming, multi-way valve, cleaning of ion source and instrument front end</li></ul><p>Sample preparation in pure solvent (standard curve, QC, solvent, solvent+ISTD, test samples), overnight analysis sequence.</p><h4><span style="font-size:20px;"><strong>Day II</strong></span></h4><h5><strong>Practical part - preparation of whole blood samples (Mitra®):</strong></h5><ul><li>Preparation of matrix standard curves</li><li>Preparation of quality control (QC) samples in three concentrations</li><li>Preparation of blank samples (without ISTD and with ISTD).</li><li>Preparation of samples for recovery determination (“pre-spiked” and “post-spiked”)</li><li>Preparation of test samples</li></ul><h5><strong>Theoretical part:</strong></h5><ul><li>Samples in the matrix - discussion of the matrix effect and ways to level it.</li><li>Optimization of sample preparation method and LC-MS/MS method</li></ul><h5><strong>Practical part:</strong></h5><ul><li>Sample extraction from Mitra® samplers for LC-MS/MS analysis.</li><li>Sequence of analysis of prepared samples overnight</li></ul><h4><span style="font-size:20px;"><strong>Day III</strong></span></h4><h5><strong>Theoretical part:</strong></h5><ul><li>Validation of the quantitative LC-MS/MS method</li></ul><h5><strong>Practical part:</strong></h5><ul><li>Software - data integration algorithms, signal smoothing, weighing.</li><li>Matrix curves vs curves in solvent, influence of ISTD (Sciex OS).</li><li>Method validation - validation criteria, determination of LOD, LLOQ, ULOQ, linearity, working range of the method, repeatability, recovery.</li><li>Preparation of summary validation reports</li><li>Reporting of results from test samples - report vs export of data to Excel.</li><li>Summary and discussion.</li></ul>

Products from category Services focused on LC/QTRAP - page 1

Related content

Invitation to the ALS Webinar PFAS in Water 2026: Achieving Compliance through Advanced Analytical Strategies

Micro-Snyder Column vs Nitrogen Blowdown: Choosing the Right Concentration Method for EPA Applications

Jan Heyda: Molecular view of membraneless organelles in collaboration with the USA