Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 20, 2025

Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Paired with Total Vaporization Solid-Phase Microextraction as a Forensic Tool
Published on: May 25, 2021
A comparison between mobile and stationary gas chromatography-mass spectrometry devices for analysis of complex
Andrea Marcillo1,2, Juan C Baca Cabrera3,4, Anja Widdig5,6,7
1Research Group of Mass Spectrometry, Institute of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry and Mineralogy, University of Leipzig, Linnéstr. 3, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. a.marcillo.lara@fz-juelich.de.
Abstract:
On-site analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with miniaturized gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) systems is a very rapidly developing field of application. While, on the one hand, major technological advances are improving the availability of these systems on the market, on the other hand, systematic studies to assess the performance of such instruments are still lacking. To fill this gap, we compared three portable GC-MS devices to a state-of-the-art benchtop (stationary) system for analysis of a standard mixture of 18 VOCs. We systematically compared analytical parameters such as the sensitivity and similarity of the signal response pattern and the quality of the obtained mass spectra. We found that the investigated mobile instruments (i) showed different response profiles with a generally lower number of identified analytes. Also, (ii) mass spectral reproducibility (% relative standard deviation (RSD) of the relative abundance of selective fragments) was generally worse in the mobile devices (mean RSD for all targeted fragments ~9.7% vs. ~3.5% in the stationary system). Furthermore, mobile devices (iii) showed a poorer mass spectral similarity to commercial reference library spectra (>20% deviation of fragment ion relative intensity vs. ~10% in the stationary GC-MS), suggesting a less reliable identification of analytes by library search. Indeed, (iv) the performance was better with higher-mass and/or more abundant fragments, which should be considered to improve the results of library searches for substance identification. Finally, (v) the estimation of the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) in mobile instruments as a measure of sensitivity revealed a significantly lower performance compared to the benchtop lab equipment (with a ratio among medians of ~8 times lower). Overall, our study reveals not only a poor signal-to-noise ratio and poor reproducibility of the data obtained from mobile instruments, but also unfavorable results with respect to a reliable identification of substances when they are applied for complex mixtures of volatiles.
More Related Videos
05:29Profiling Volatile Compounds in Blackcurrant Fruit using Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Coupled to Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
Published on: June 9, 2021
10:14Chromatographic Fingerprinting by Template Matching for Data Collected by Comprehensive Two-Dimensional Gas Chromatography
Published on: September 2, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS)
A gas chromatograph consists of a long, narrow capillary column with a polysiloxane coating on the inner wall....
Mass Spectrometry: Complex Analysis
GC–MS is a powerful hyphenated method commonly used in forensics and environmental...
Gas Chromatography: Introduction
In GC, a sample is vaporized and mixed with an inert carrier gas (the mobile phase), which transports it through a...
Gas Chromatography: Types of Columns and Stationary Phases
For an analyte to remain on the column for a sufficient amount of time, it must exhibit some level of compatibility (or...
Gas Chromatography: Overview of Detectors
A non-destructive detector allows a sample to be analyzed without altering or consuming it, meaning the sample can be collected after detection for further analysis. Examples include thermal conductivity detectors and...
Gas Chromatography: Sample Injection Systems
Two primary injection methods are used...