HPLC and LC-MS research workflows generate more than a final chromatogram or mass spectrum. They generate a set of linked records: the material lot, sample-preparation record, instrument method, sequence, system-suitability outcome, raw-data file, processing settings, review notes, and reported result. Maintaining the links among those records is a practical way to make an analytical workflow more interpretable and more reproducible.
Assign identifiers that persist across the workflow
A laboratory can begin with a unique internal identifier for each received lot and then connect that identifier to aliquots, prepared samples, and analytical sequences. The identifier should appear in the inventory record, preparation worksheet, instrument sequence, and data-review record. Barcode tools may help where appropriate, but the essential control is consistency: a reviewer should be able to move from a reported file back to the material-lot record without relying on informal naming conventions.
Record the analytical context, not only the result
A complete review includes the method version, instrument identifier, date, calibration or tuning status, sequence order, system-suitability checks, blank and quality-control observations, and any deviations that affected the run. These items place a result in context. For example, a reviewer may need to know whether an integration setting was applied consistently across a sequence or whether an aborted injection was investigated and documented.
Make manual interventions reviewable
Chromatographic and mass-spectrometric data processing can involve choices such as peak boundaries, smoothing, background handling, or integration rules. When a workflow permits manual intervention, the reason, operator, date, and effect on the relevant record should be preserved. This does not imply that a manual action is improper; it allows a second reviewer to understand what changed and why.
Use second-person review purposefully
Second-person review is most useful when it is defined. A review checklist can include sample-to-lot linkage, method version, system suitability, completeness of the sequence record, exceptions, and the presence of supporting files. The reviewer should be able to see whether the data package is complete rather than receiving only a summary statement.
Preserve a retrievable data package
For each reviewed workflow, retain the raw data, metadata, method or acquisition settings, processing record, review comments, and the lot traceability link. A controlled data package helps a laboratory revisit an analytical decision, compare recurring observations across lots, and distinguish a documented finding from an unsupported interpretation.
Not for human consumption.
References
- Dissemination and analysis of the quality assurance and quality control practices of LC-MS based untargeted metabolomics practitioners. Metabolomics. 2021;17:7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-020-01728-5
- Review of the use of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in clinical laboratories: Part II—Operations. Clinical Chemistry. 2022. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8977531/
- Data Integrity in the Chromatography Laboratory, Part V: Second-Person Review. LCGC International. https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/data-integrity-chromatography-laboratory-part-v-second-person-review