A general range for acceptance of the recovery rate does not exist. It depends on the analytical question you want to answer.

Recovery is defined as the ratio of the observed mean test result to the true value. In biological samples, for instance, with a matrix of thousands of metabolites, the recovery rates strongly depends on the sample preparation technique. The lower the concentration of the analyte the lower the precision and the more uncertain the recovery rate will be. Most of the analytical experiments in life science handle with so called semi-quantitative data at which the recovery rates are unknown.

In our laboratory we analyze aroma compounds in fruit extracts containing hundreds of VOCs. Some of the important compounds (e. g. methyl anthranilate) show very low recovery (~3 %) using SPME sample preparation. Nevertheless you can use these data to compare samples. Without known recovery rate the true value of the analyte will be unknown but the differences between samples of similar provenience will be correct.

Another situation may occur in lawful analyses.

The acceptance range of the recovery depends on the concentrations (see AOAC appendix f); What did you mean by recovery of sample and recovery of standard?

http://www.eoma.aoac.org/app_f.pdf

The % recovery may have any value depending upon the situation, in the case when biological matrix does not contain the externally added standard recovery rate up to 85 % are acceptable but for the matrix containing externally added standard the recovery rate might be higher

Mr. Hwang,

It accounts for the matrix effect.

Matrix containing externally added standard the recovery for 80% - 120%

It depended on what  you recovered, if you recovered such rare material from waste 50% and more is acceptable but in biological  and drug recovery the recovery must be more than 95%    

A general range for acceptance of the recovery rate does not exist. It depends on the analytical question you want to answer.

Recovery is defined as the ratio of the observed mean test result to the true value. In biological samples, for instance, with a matrix of thousands of metabolites, the recovery rates strongly depends on the sample preparation technique. The lower the concentration of the analyte the lower the precision and the more uncertain the recovery rate will be. Most of the analytical experiments in life science handle with so called semi-quantitative data at which the recovery rates are unknown.

In our laboratory we analyze aroma compounds in fruit extracts containing hundreds of VOCs. Some of the important compounds (e. g. methyl anthranilate) show very low recovery (~3 %) using SPME sample preparation. Nevertheless you can use these data to compare samples. Without known recovery rate the true value of the analyte will be unknown but the differences between samples of similar provenience will be correct.

Another situation may occur in lawful analyses.

I would like

to express my opinion. I have used pharmaceutical spiked or added recovery (please see files; Insulin RP-HPLC and Lysozyme by RP-HPLC).

, essential point is to get the 100% recovery from the column in HPLC or recovery from the separation tools (please see files; Lysozyme in RP-HPLC and IEF for hydrophobic protein).    100% recovery is essential in reproducible analysis.   I have described that the recovery of ovalbmine from the column is 81%, which means recovery of ovalbumin from the column at the first gradient elution is 81% (0.81).   Then, next elution washes out the remained protein at 0.19 x 0.81  =  0.15, and the next elution elutes all the protein to give the safe base-line.   Then, recovery of 81% means that next injection of sample is possible to perform after the two additive gradient elution.   Recovery of 97% (lysozyme) means that one gradient washing is sufficient to analyze nextly.   It is essential that this 100% recovery from the column can be obatainable when the acidic-phosphate buffer (pH 2.0)/2-propanol/ethyleneglycol is used, but TFA system gives no such recovery phenomenon at all.     

to answer the question one needs to know what your validating, impurities Assay , pharmaceutical, paints etc. and also what technique  HPLC/UPLC, GS , MS, IC, CE,UV .

you could look at ICH Guide lines..

https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q2_R1/Step4/Q2_R1__Guideline.pdf

or

Guidelines for Industry:

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm073384.pdf

Further, we have observed a very low recovery in thioctic acid analysis (please see file; Lipoic acid Avidin).   Surely, recovery of thiol-containing molecule is low.   However, this case of low recovery during sample preparation is reproducible, and thioctic acid determination has been safely performed.

For LC-MS/MS analyses, there is no criteria for recovery.

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidance/ucm070107.pdf

Inter- and intraday precision and accuracy are more important criteria for method validation. As long as the recovery is consistent across analyses, it doesn't matter the absolute recovery is (if you use isotopic labeled internal standards). However, the higher recovery can enhance the sensitivity of your method. That's the reason why we want a higher recovery as much as possible.

Thanks a lot for everyone.

Your answers really helpful!

My recovery not near to 100% but RSD was lower than 10%. When I repeated the tests in same day and different days, the recoveries were almost similar. I used the blank (e.g. distilled water) as my reference material then compared the recovery value of spiked blank to my sample, the ratio of recovery was near to 100%.