ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2023
A comparison between mobile and stationary gas chromatography-mass spectrometry devices for analysis of complex volatile profiles.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-enabled diagnosis of viral respiratory infections from exhaled volatile organic compound analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Metal-Organic Frameworks in Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy-Based Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Sample Collection and Processing in Volatile Organic Compound Analysis for Gastrointestinal Cancers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.