Comparison of analytical techniques for quantification of 8-iso-PGF2α using HPLC-MS-MS and enzyme immunoassay
Advisor:Schwartz, Steven J.
MetadataShow full item record
Publisher:The Ohio State University
Series/Report no.:The Ohio State University. Department of Food Science and Technology Honors Theses;2005
In short, analysis of spiked urine samples by immunoassay and HPLC-MS-MS revealed that there is no significant difference in the recoveries obtained, however, a tendency for higher values obtained through immunoassay analysis was observed. HPLC-MS-MS offers good precision and analysis, given that enough time is spent to optimize the instrument conditions to its full potential and especially when including internal standards. Deuterated standards have shown to be a valuable tool for this purpose. Enzyme immunoassay methods do not require sophisticated instrumentation, but the precision can not be improved beyond its existing parameters. Liquid and solid phase extractions are a necessity for the HPLC-MS-MS analysis, while unpurified urine samples seem to yield good recoveries by immunoassay. Urine, as a matrix, seemingly can influence results in both ways. Urine may create higher recoveries in immunoassay methods due to cross-reactivity, while precipitation and entrapment of the analyte seems a more predominant factor for HPLC-MS-MS assays. Ultimately, the decision between using HPLC-MS-MS and immunoassay would have to be decided by familiarity, cost, and personal preference.
OARDC Undergraduate Research Grant and Undergraduate Student Government Grant
Items in Knowledge Bank are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.