4.6 Article

Usage considerations for headspace-gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry as a suitable technique for qualitative analysis in a routine lab

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1640, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2021.461937

关键词

Gas chromatography; Ion mobility spectrometry; Quality control; Qualitative analysis

资金

  1. Spanish Olive Oil Interprofessional Organisation
  2. Spanish Table Olive Interprofessional Organisation
  3. FEDER funds
  4. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article highlights the potential and importance of headspace-gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (HS-GC-IMS) in non targeted qualitative analysis, as well as discusses a novel quality control protocol suitable for different users.
The potential of headspace-gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (HS-GC-IMS) to perform non targeted qualitative analysis of complex samples has led to an unprecedented increase in its popularity in recent years. The operating principle of IMS makes quality control essential to ensure adequate results. Besides this, the suitability of GC-IMS is determined by multiple phenomena that take place before and during IMS detection. The present work discusses a novel GC-IMS quality control protocol for both beginners and experienced users. Likewise, it describes factors that must be taken into account in order to develop a robust GC-IMS qualitative analysis method and, if needed, to achieve the identification of VOCs present in real samples. The developed quality control protocol was successfully employed in our laboratory for the routine analysis of > 500 real samples (olive oil and Iberian ham) for 6 months, thus it is recommended for the analysis of a great number of complex samples. Furthermore, the behaviour of the ions produced in the ionisation chamber and the possible reactions between them in GC-IMS qualitative analysis were assessed. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据