ArticleAnalytical chemistry2026
Analytical Challenges and Strategies for Compound Identification Using Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) is applied for the classification of complex samples using multivariate analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) extracted from the matrix. However, feature identification remains one of its greatest challenges due to feature overlapping, variability of retention index (RI), and limited availability of drift time (DT) values of ions in libraries. Although combined annotation-and-confirmation approaches have been reported in the literature, no systematic and quantitative evaluation of their implementation in GC-IMS has been provided to date. This study addresses that gap by providing practical guidelines and a critical, evidence-based discussion of the challenges and strategies for VOCs identification in GC-IMS. Two approaches were evaluated. First, the use of a commercial library was examined, considering the influence of the employed RI and DT search margins on identification results, and highlighting the limitations of using RI values alone, as well as the decisive role of DT values. Second, the use of analytical standards as a validation tool, demonstrating their essential role in resolving ambiguities caused by feature overlapping and competitive ionization of different VOCs in the ionization chamber, as well as in confirming VOCs not identified with the library due to missing DT values. In addition, a simplified workflow to achieve a reproducible identification of GC-IMS features is provided. A mixture of 45 standards and a virgin olive oil sample were used as model systems, demonstrating that the combined approach with library search and standard analysis yields more reliable identifications.
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.