Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41915229›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026

Comparison of approaches for quantifying extractables in a variety of polymeric medical device materials with LC-MS/MS.

Anneke L Niehuus, Max Renneisen, Sascha Reinschmiedt, Denise Sievers, Oliver J Schmitz, Sven W Meckelmann

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anneke L NiehuusDrägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA, Moislinger Allee 53-55, 23558, Lübeck, Germany.
Max RenneisenDrägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA, Moislinger Allee 53-55, 23558, Lübeck, Germany.
Sascha ReinschmiedtDrägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA, Moislinger Allee 53-55, 23558, Lübeck, Germany.
Denise SieversDrägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA, Moislinger Allee 53-55, 23558, Lübeck, Germany.
Oliver J SchmitzApplied Analytical Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstrasse 5, 45141, Essen, Germany. oliver.schmitz@uni-due.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2184-1207
Sven W MeckelmannApplied Analytical Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstrasse 5, 45141, Essen, Germany. sven.meckelmann@uni-due.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0407-7879

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantification by LC-MS using electrospray ionization (ESI) is challenging due to various factors that influence signal intensity. The gold standard involves the use of isotopically labelled standards spiked into the sample. However, for the analysis of extractable compounds from polymeric materials in medical devices, such standards are often unavailable. Nevertheless, these extractables must be monitored and quantified in accordance with regulatory requirements. In this study, we compared different LC-MS-based approaches for quantifying extractables from polymers commonly used in medical devices. The evaluation focused on 25 analytes, partially of high regulatory relevance under the European Medical Device Regulation. Two primary strategies were investigated: quantification using internal isotope-labelled surrogates, and the use of relative response factors (RRFs) from an experimentally established database. Using the closest eluting internal surrogate resulted in a mean quantification error of over threefold, which improved to 2.7-fold when surrogates were selected based on structural similarity for ESI+ mode while no significant improvement was observed for ESI- mode. In contrast, employing the RRF database yielded a lower bias, with a mean error of 1.6-fold (ESI+) and 2.3-fold (ESI-) using structurally similar compounds and as low as 1.2-fold when the analyte's specific RRF was available. These approaches were applied to 22 polymer materials spanning 8 polymer types. Each was extracted using three different solvents and the impact of matrix effects on quantification accuracy was assessed. Although matrix effects such as ion suppression were observed, their influence was minor compared to the differences among the quantification approaches.

Indexed as

Equipment and SuppliesLiquid Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryPolymersTandem Mass SpectrometryChromatography, LiquidSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationPolymersExtractablesMatrix effectsPolymer additivesPolymer matrixQuantificationResponse factor

Identifiers

PMID41915229
PMCPMC13221373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.