Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36396731›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2023

A comparison between mobile and stationary gas chromatography-mass spectrometry devices for analysis of complex volatile profiles.

Andrea Marcillo, Juan C Baca Cabrera, Anja Widdig, Claudia Birkemeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrea MarcilloResearch 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.
Juan C Baca CabreraGrassland Group, Technical University of Munich, Alte Akademie 12, 85354, Freising, Germany.
Anja WiddigResearch Group of Behavioral Ecology, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Leipzig, Talstr. 33, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Claudia BirkemeyerResearch Group of Mass Spectrometry, Institute of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry and Mineralogy, University of Leipzig, Linnéstr. 3, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. birkemeyer@chemie.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8538-8838

Funding

European Regional Development Fund 100195810German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy ZF4548701SL8
6 · The paper itself

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

Volatile Organic CompoundsGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryReproducibility of ResultsSignal-To-Noise RatioVolatile Organic CompoundsAnalytical performanceComplex VOC analysisPoint-of-care mass spectrometryPortable devicesThermal desorption–gas chromatography

Identifiers

PMID36396731
PMCPMC9672629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.