SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating Recovery in the Liquid–Liquid Extraction Chemical Space

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomedical Materials & Devices Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Chemical characterization studies for medical devices rely on extract preparation techniques such as liquid–liquid extraction to render the extract more amenable to instrumental analysis. Considering these studies are generally non-targeted, the effect of extract preparation on the full range of potential analytes must be considered. However, there is currently no workflow for evaluating the impact of extract preparation on non-targeted extractables. Herein, we present a framework for approaching this problem by defining the applicable chemical space, selecting a model that appropriately predicts recovery from the extract preparation method, selecting example chemicals with a range of expected recoveries, and experimentally measuring the recoveries to verify the model performance under laboratory conditions. The framework is demonstrated for liquid–liquid extraction, with recovery demonstrably dependent on extractable pKa and distribution coefficient. Method parameters including pH, volume ratios, and extraction iterations were also considered critical factors in determining recovery. The analytical method was subsequently verified by incorporating deliberate deviations in the critical parameters as part of robustness determination for the method using a central composite design. Overall, the method parameters selected in this work resulted in coverage of approximately 85% of the selected chemical space. Further, for the various permutations evaluated, the model was found to predict recovery with a root-mean-square error of 19%. A result of this approach is increased clarity in the use of surrogate standards for evaluation of extract preparation methods, indicating that they should be chosen based on the variables included in the predictive model. Additionally, the verified model can be applied to the selected chemical space so that estimations can be made about which relevant analytes are likely to be poorly recovered during extract preparation. This framework is generally applicable to understand the effect of extract preparation on non-targeted analysis and how these considerations can be integrated into method development and validation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. ISO, ISO 10993-18 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices - Part 18: Chemical Characterization of Medical Device Materials Within a Risk Management Process (International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2020)

  2. AAMI, Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process, in ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018; Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 1: Evaluation and Testing Within a Risk Management Process (AAMI, Melbourne, 2020). https://doi.org/10.2345/9781570207556.ch1

  3. E.M. Sussman et al., Chemical characterization and non-targeted analysis of medical device extracts: a review of current approaches, gaps, and emerging practices. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 8(3), 939–963 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c01119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. C.I.C. Silvestre, J.L.M. Santos, J.L.F.C. Lima, E.A.G. Zagatto, Liquid–liquid extraction in flow analysis: a critical review. Anal. Chim. Acta 652(1–2), 54–65 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2009.05.042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. P.G. Mazzola et al., Liquid–liquid extraction of biomolecules: an overview and update of the main techniques. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 83(2), 143–157 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.1794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. K. Levsen, Sample preparation for water analysis, in Sampling and Sample Preparation for Field and Laboratory, ed. by J. Pawliszyn ((Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 2002), pp. 721–778

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. C.W. Coley, Defining and exploring chemical spaces. Trends Chem. 3(2), 133–145 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trechm.2020.11.004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. B.L. Milman, I.K. Zhurkovich, The chemical space for non-target analysis. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 97, 179–187 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2017.09.013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. G. Black et al., Exploring chemical space in non-targeted analysis: a proposed ChemSpace tool. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-022-04434-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Y. Liu, X. Yu, J. Chen, Quantitative structure–property relationship of distribution coefficients of organic compounds. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 31(8), 585–596 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2020.1782468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. K.L. Dionisio et al., The chemical and products database, a resource for exposure-relevant data on chemicals in consumer products. Sci. Data 5(1), 180125 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Nagao et al. The ELSIE Extractable and Leachable Database [Internet]. Pharm. Outsourcing 2011. https://www.pharmoutsourcing.com/Featured-Articles/37828-The-ELSIE-Extractables-and-Leachables-Database/. Accessed on 28 Apr 2023

  13. H. Wiesinger, Z. Wang, S. Hellweg, Deep dive into plastic monomers, additives, and processing aids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55(13), 9339–9351 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00976

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Proposition 65 LIst of Chemicals. [Internet] 2022. https://oehhca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list. Accessed 28 Apr 2023

  15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. [Internet]; (2022), https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory. Accessed 28 Apr 2023

  16. K. Mansouri et al., Open-source QSAR models for pKa prediction using multiple machine learning approaches. J. Cheminform. 11(1), 60 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-019-0384-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. T.N. Brown, QSPRs for predicting equilibrium partitioning in solvent-air systems from the chemical structures of solutes and solvents. J. Solut. Chem. 51(9), 1101–1132 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10953-022-01162-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. M.H. Abraham, R.E. Smith, R. Luchtefeld, A.J. Boorem, R. Luo, W.E. Acree, Prediction of solubility of drugs and other compounds in organic solvents. J. Pharm. Sci. 99(3), 1500–1515 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.21922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. N. Ulrich et al., “UFZ-LSER database,” UFZ-LSER database v 3.2.1. http://www.ufz.de/lserd

  20. Q 2 (R1) Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology (2006)

  21. R.S. Bohacek, C. McMartin, W.C. Guida, The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med. Res. Rev. 16(1), 3–50 (1996)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. J.-L. Reymond, The chemical space project. Acc. Chem. Res. 48(3), 722–730 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1021/ar500432k

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. T. Hoffmann, M. Gastreich, The next level in chemical space navigation: going far beyond enumerable compound libraries. Drug Discov. Today 24(5), 1148–1156 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2019.02.013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. BioByte Corporation, BioByte (2019), http://www.biobyte.com/. Accessed 28 April 2023

  25. Advanced Chemistry Development ACDLabs, Chemistry software for analytical and chemical knowledge management. (2019), https://www.acdlabs.com/. Accessed 28 Apr 2023

  26. Simulations Plus, Simulations plus: model-based drug development to make better data-driven decisions (2019), https://www.simulations-plus.com/. Accessed 28 Apr 2023

  27. ChemAxon Ltd. Chemicalize (2019), https://chemaxon.com/products/chemicalize. Accessed 28 Apr 2023

  28. W. Horwitz, Evaluation of analytical methods used for regulation of foods and drugs. Anal. Chem. (1982). https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00238a002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. B. Schulze et al., An assessment of quality assurance/quality control efforts in high resolution mass spectrometry non-target workflows for analysis of environmental samples. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 133, 116063 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2020.116063

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biology, Chemistry and Materials Science, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA

    Kaleb J. Duelge & Joshua A. Young

Authors
  1. Kaleb J. Duelge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua A. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua A. Young.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to disclose.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 340 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duelge, K.J., Young, J.A. Estimating Recovery in the Liquid–Liquid Extraction Chemical Space. Biomedical Materials & Devices 2, 557–565 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44174-023-00123-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44174-023-00123-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation