<p><strong>Hexane is one of the most widely used extraction solvents in the global food system. Derived from petroleum, it plays a central role in efficiently extracting vegetable oils from crops such as soy, sunflower, rapeseed, and corn. The same process produces protein-rich oilseed meals that are widely used in animal feed. From a technological perspective, hexane is effective, inexpensive, and well understood. From a toxicological and regulatory perspective, however, it is increasingly under scrutiny.</strong></p><p>In the European Union, “technical hexane” is authorized as a food extraction solvent under Directive 2009/32/EC. Its last full safety assessment by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Food dates back to 1996. In 2024, the <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9001"><strong>European Food Safety Authority</strong></a> (EFSA) concluded that this assessment is no longer sufficient and formally called for a re-evaluation. The reasons are scientific rather than sensational: technical hexane is not a single pure compound, its impurities are poorly specified, human absorption of n-hexane is well documented, and exposure—particularly for infants and young children—may have been underestimated under current regulatory assumptions.</p><p>At the same time, public attention has intensified. Investigations commissioned by <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.greenpeace.fr/scandale-sanitaire-lhexane-un-solvant-toxique-dans-vos-assiettes/"><strong>Greenpeace</strong></a> reported detectable hexane residues in a wide range of everyday foods, including vegetable oils, butter, milk, infant formula, and poultry. While the measured levels generally fall within current legal limits, these<strong> </strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.theexamination.org/articles/processing-agent-hexane-found-in-everyday-foods-renewing-concerns-about-toxic-chemical"><strong>findings</strong></a><strong> </strong>highlight a critical gap between regulatory compliance and public expectations of food safety and transparency. Processing aids like hexane are not listed on labels, even though trace residues may remain in final products.</p><p>From a scientific standpoint, the debate raises several important questions. How robust are existing toxicological datasets for chronic, low-level exposure? Do current analytical methods sufficiently characterize impurities and residues across complex food matrices? And should efficiency-driven processing choices be reconsidered when safer—though potentially less economical—alternatives exist?</p><p><strong>EFSA’s conclusion is cautious but clear:</strong> there is no immediate acute health concern, but the available evidence is insufficient to confidently assess long-term risks. As new toxicological data emerge and analytical capabilities improve, hexane has become a case study in how legacy food technologies can outpace the science and regulation designed to govern them. The outcome of the ongoing re-evaluation may shape not only future solvent use, but also broader expectations around transparency, precaution, and trust in the food system.</p><h3><strong>Global inconsistencies in safety standards</strong></h3><p>Hexane regulation varies widely across jurisdictions. European limits are among the most conservative, yet they rely heavily on industry-generated data. In other regions, allowable residue levels are significantly higher, and in some cases, hexane use in food and feed is largely unrestricted. This variability complicates global risk assessment and raises questions about harmonization and scientific consistency in food safety governance.</p><h3><strong>Beyond compliance: Rethinking food processing choices</strong></h3><p>The ongoing re-evaluation of hexane illustrates a broader challenge in food science: technologies adopted for efficiency and cost-effectiveness may persist long after their safety assumptions become outdated. The issue is not whether hexane poses an immediate public health crisis—EFSA has explicitly stated that it does not—but whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify its continued widespread use without further scrutiny.</p><p>Advances in analytical chemistry now allow more sensitive detection of residues and impurities, while modern toxicology places greater emphasis on long-term, low-dose effects. At the same time, alternative extraction technologies, though less efficient, are becoming more viable as sustainability and safety considerations gain weight.</p><h3><strong>What are the best methods for detection?</strong></h3><p><strong>Detection options</strong></p><ul><li><strong>HS-GC-FID</strong>: robust, sensitive for hydrocarbons, widely used for routine control (often aligned with “official” oil methods such as AOCS workflows referenced in the literature).</li><li><strong>HS-GC-MS</strong>: adds spectral ID confirmation (useful when there are interferences or you want stronger identity evidence).</li></ul><p><strong>Quantification</strong></p><ul><li>Prefer <strong>internal standard</strong> calibration (often a similar volatile hydrocarbon not expected in the sample) and matrix-matched calibration where feasible.</li></ul><h3><strong>Conclusions</strong></h3><p>EFSA concluded that there is a need to re-evaluate the safety of technical hexane used as an extraction solvent in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients. A key aspect of this re-evaluation concerns the accurate characterization and quantification of hexane residues and related hydrocarbons, where <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/products?category=1&amp;manufacturerItems=3"><strong>gas chromatography (GC)</strong></a> plays a central role. Robust GC-based analytical methods are essential to reliably determine residual solvent levels, distinguish between different hexane isomers and impurities, and ensure compliance with regulatory limits.</p><p>Advances in GC methodology, including improved separation, sensitivity, and detection capabilities, can significantly reduce analytical uncertainty and support more precise exposure assessments. High-quality GC data are therefore critical for refining dietary exposure estimates, identifying potential sources of variability, and supporting a science-based risk assessment. Strengthening analytical controls through validated GC methods will be an important component of addressing EFSA’s safety concerns and ensuring continued consumer protection.</p><p><strong>Visit us on&nbsp;</strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/72003132/admin/dashboard/"><strong><u>LinkedIn:</u></strong></a><strong>&nbsp;</strong>#hexaneSafety, #GC-FID #GC-MS</p><section><blockquote><h5><strong>Petra Gerhards</strong></h5><p>Petra Gerhards, Dipl-Ing, is Regional Marketing Manager of GC and GC-MS for EMEA at Thermo Fisher Scientific. She has more than 29 years of experience in the fields of GC-MS, SPE and LC-MS. Since joining the regional team she has contributed to workflow solutions combining vials and closures with SPE solutions, GC-MS and LC-MS. She works with KOL's on data for regional specific marketing campaigns, organizes in-house seminars and works on customer specific solutions. Her main expertise is in the field of doping and drugs-of-abuse analysis.</p></blockquote></section>

Hexane in Food: When Processing Chemistry Meets Public Health

<p><strong>In the week of February 16, the following webinars await you in the field of gas / solid phase and especially Raman, FTIR, GC and GC/MS.</strong></p><blockquote><h4><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/webinars"><strong>👉 DETAILS AND REGISTRATION IN THE WEBINARS SECTION</strong></a></h4><p><strong>👉 Search and filter in the largest global database</strong> with over <strong>5 000 GC, LC, MS and spectroscopy webinars</strong>.</p></blockquote><div><div><div><div><div><div><h5><strong>1. Agilent Technologies: Small Size, Big Impact – High-Performance Benchtop GC and GC/MS with the Agilent 8850 GC</strong></h5><ul><li>Tu, 17.2.2026 17:00 CET</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/webinar/5723">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Discover how the Agilent 8850 GC, compatible with single and triple quadrupole MS, reduces bench space, utilities, and run time while delivering high-performance GC and GC/MS analysis.</p><h5><strong>2. Wasson-ECE Instrumentation: Dynamic Blender</strong></h5><ul><li>Tu, 17.2.2026 21:30 CET</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/webinar/5745">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Learn how the Dynamic Blender dilutes standards with carrier gas to generate accurate multi-point calibrations from single gas cylinders.</p><h5><strong>3. Waters Corporation: Ask Me Anything About Managing Computerized System Risks to Data Integrity</strong></h5><ul><li>Th, 19.2.2026 17:00 CET</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/webinar/5809">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Learn practical strategies for managing computerized system risks in regulated laboratories to protect data integrity, ensure compliance, and avoid regulatory findings.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div>

Webinars LabRulezGCMS Week 08/2026

<p><strong>This laboratory experiment introduces undergraduate chemistry students to headspace GC–MS through a forensic toxicology framework. Students analyze common volatile compounds such as ethanol, isopropanol, acetone, and 1,1-difluoroethane while learning key concepts in gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, calibration, and data evaluation.</strong></p><p>Participants prepare calibrators and controls, quantify ethanol, and assess qualitative analytes in a simulated vitreous humor sample using objective acceptance criteria. Implemented over three semesters with a &gt;92% success rate, the experiment is adaptable to different course levels and resources. Headspace GC–MS offers additional advantages, including minimal sample preparation and reduced instrument maintenance.</p><blockquote><h4><strong>The original article</strong></h4><h4><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00118"><strong>Introducing Headspace Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry to Undergraduate Chemistry Students from a Forensic Toxicology Perspective</strong></a></h4><p>Devin C. Baer, and Michele M. Crosby*</p><p>J. Chem. Educ. 2026, 103, 1, 441–448</p><p><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00118">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00118</a></p><h6>licensed under <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><strong>CC-BY 4.0</strong></a></h6></blockquote><p><strong>Selected sections from the article follow. Formats and hyperlinks were adapted from the original.</strong></p><div><p>Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) is widely used across chemistry disciplines, from analysis of biodiesel feedstocks to pesticides residues in vegetables and even two-dimensional GC (GC × GC) such as GC × GC time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC × GC-TOFMS) in forensic science applications. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(4−6)</a> The two-dimensional GC of the GC × GC-TOFMS can provide more optimized separation of analytes compared to one-dimensional GC and the time-of-flight (TOF) mass analyzer is an alternative to the quadrupole discussed earlier in this section. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(6)</a> In the environmental field, GC-MS can be used to detect pollutants related to microplastics and pesticide residues. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(7,8)</a> GC-MS and GC tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) is useful in food safety and quality assurance because of its ability to detect contaminants and assess ingredient quality. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(9,10)</a> GC-MS, including GC × GC-TOFMS and GC-MS/MS, is used in characterization of coal-derived liquids and petroleum exploration. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(11,12)</a> In forensics, these types of instrumentation are used to identify residues, like fire accelerants, explosive residues, or drugs at a crime scene, and to identify drugs, poisons, or other substances in biological samples. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1,6,13)</a> In summary, a fundamental understanding of GC-MS will lend itself tremendously to any potential career field or discipline that may interest an undergraduate chemistry student.</p><p>In one application of headspace GC-MS, an aliquot of the biological sample is diluted with an internal standard solution and placed in a sealed glass vial. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1,14)</a> The internal standard solution is a saline-based solution that optimizes the evaporation (sometimes called “salting out”) of the volatile compounds into the headspace portion of the vial, and it contains a compound that is similar in chemical structure to the analyte(s) of interest, The glass vial is heated to separate the volatile compounds from the biological matrix, and a sample of the headspace vapor containing the volatile compound is taken. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1,14)</a> The concentration of the volatile analyte in the dilute aqueous sample is directly proportional to the concentration of the volatile analyte in the gas phase, or headspace, above the liquid. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(14)</a> Internal standard solution is added to a sample to give an indication of the extraction quality and aids in the concentration determination. The same concentration of the internal standard is added to the calibrators, controls, and case samples in a batch. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1)</a> The ratio of the analyte response to the internal standard response is the most important factor to consider, not the absolute value of the analyte, in determining the concentration (or the qualitative presence/absence) of the analytes. By using this ratio, students can account for differences in analyte responses due to variables like extraction recovery, matrix effects, and injection volume. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1,2)</a></p><h4><strong>Relevance to Forensic Toxicology</strong></h4><p>Currently, very few published experiments exist for undergraduates involving forensic toxicology, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(15)</a> and even fewer involve volatile analysis. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(16)</a> Forensic toxicology laboratories routinely analyze samples for the presence of ethanol, methanol, acetone, and isopropanol. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1)</a> Cases involving driving under the influence (DUI) and homicides are just a few examples targeted by these types of laboratories. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1,17−20)</a> Ethanol, commonly referred to as alcohol, is the main type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages and is considered the most commonly encountered substance in forensic toxicology casework. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1)</a> In the U.S., most states have established a per-se limit for the blood alcohol concentration for drivers of 0.08 g/dL and violating this law could lead to prosecution for driving under the influence. Ethanol is also frequently encountered in post-mortem cases, such as homicides, traffic accidents, and alcohol poisonings. However, it is important to consider when interpreting ethanol concentrations that ethanol can be produced in the body after death by microorganisms breaking down the body. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1)</a> Certain types of specimens collected after death, such as urine and vitreous humor (clear fluid inside the eye), are more resistant to this phenomenon and can be used to help determine antemortem ethanol consumption versus post-mortem production. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1)</a> Isopropanol can be found in rubbing alcohol, so it is recommended that a different kind of antiseptic be used to clean the skin before a blood draw for a DUI. Isopropanol can also be found in various household cleaning products. It is also important in post-mortem forensic toxicology as it may be abused by chronic users or accidentally ingested. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1,19,20)</a> Acetone is important as it is ta product of the metabolism of isopropanol, but it is also produced endogenously. High levels of acetone may be an indication of uncontrolled diabetes, so it is very important in post-mortem casework. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1,20)</a> Methanol, sometimes known as wood alcohol, can be encountered in forensic toxicology casework, as it is found in improperly distilled alcoholic beverages and many household products. Methanol poisoning can be fatal due to the formation of the metabolite formaldehyde. Furthermore, methanol can be an artifact seen in embalmed specimens. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1)</a></p><p>While forensic toxicology laboratories use headspace gas chromatography–flame ionization (GC-FID) detection more commonly for the quantitation of volatile compounds, headspace GC-MS is a gold standard for identifying and confirming other types of volatile compounds such as 1,1-difluoroethane (DFE). DFE is commonly found in keyboard cleaners and has the potential for abuse, which is why forensic toxicology laboratories need the ability to detect it. DFE has been detected in driving under the influence cases as it has become anabused inhalant, due to the cheap cost and ease of access. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(17,18)</a></p><p>The University of Tampa possesses a GC-MS equipped with a headspace autosampler; therefore, GC-MS was used rather than GC-FID for this experiment. Furthermore, GC-MS was strategically chosen to give students more practice with complicated data analysis provided by GC-MS in SIM mode. It is important to note that methanol was not chosen as a target for this experiment because of the difficulty in finding enough unique ions without interference from common environmental molecules.</p><h4><strong>Materials and Reagents</strong></h4><p>The following were purchased from Fisher (Hampton, NH): ethanol, acetone, and isopropanol. Endust for Electronics (Buffalo, NY) multi-purpose duster was used for the DFE standard. 20 mL headspace vials and caps were purchased from PerkinElmer (Waltham, MA). A DB-624 column (20 m × 0.18 mm × 1.00 μm) was purchased from Agilent (Santa Clara, CA). The instrument used in this experiment was an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=6890N"><strong>Agilent 6890N gas chromatograph</strong></a> and <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=5973N"><strong>5973N mass spectrometer</strong></a> (operated in SIM mode) with a Gerstel MPS2 multipurpose autosampler (see <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00118#tbl1">Table 1</a> for additional instrument parameters). Helium was used as a carrier gas. A 2.5 mL Hamilton CTC and LEAP technologies GC PAL autosampler syringe: gastight was used.</p><h4><strong>Results and Discussion</strong></h4><p>There was a total of 43 students enrolled in the course over 3 semesters with an average grade on the assignment of 83 ± 11%. As part of this assignment, students quantitated ethanol concentrations and qualitatively identified acetone or isopropanol. One student did not complete the assignment as instructed and did not provide appropriate results for the analytes; therefore, the following data were compiled for 42 students unless otherwise stated. Of note, DFE is a recent addition to the experiment and was not used in previous semesters. It has been evaluated and determined to be a suitable qualitative compound for this experiment as an alternative or in addition to acetone and isopropanol. Additional information is provided below as part of the potential modifications to the experiment. It should also be highlighted that this course and thus this experiment are designed to prepare students for a career in forensic science based on feedback and advice from forensic science agencies. It mimics laboratory training and proficiency testing that forensic science analysts must undergo before being approved to conduct casework analyses. Therefore, the success of the experiment was determined by the student’s ability to report accurate results rather than student survey data or feedback.</p><p>The representative retention times are shown in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00118#fig1">Figure 1</a> for ethanol, acetone, isopropanol, and <i>tert</i>-butanol (internal standard). DFE was also included in the figure for easy reference. The peak that appears before DFE in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00118#fig1">Figure 1</a> represents a small volatile compound that appeared in all samples, including airblanks. If DFE is not used in the experiment, then it is recommended to include a solvent delay of 1 min. The average retention time of ethanol over 3 semesters (<i>n</i> = 42) was 1.60 ± 0.01 min. Acetone’s average retention time was 1.89 ± &lt;0.01 min. Isopropanol’s average retention time was 2.00 ± 0.01 min. The average retention time of <i>tert</i>-butanol was 2.37 ± 0.02 min. See <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00118#tbl2">Table 2</a> gives a summary of the average retention times for each volatile compound. Of note, the variation of retention time primarily occurred between semesters due to routine annual maintenance. All 42 students’ data passed the calibration acceptance criteria with an average <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> value of the ethanol calibration curve of 0.995 ± 0.004 over 3 semesters (<i>n</i> = 42). <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00118#fig2">Figure 2</a> shows the chromatograms produced by the SIM analysis of each volatile compound. This figure is an example of one of the components produced in the report generated by students during data processing, where students use these mass spectral data to evaluate and report data.</p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/J_Chem_Educ_2026_103_1_441_448_Figure_1_Example_total_ion_chromatogram_of_volatile_compounds_and_retention_times_fa3c745c20.jpeg" alt="J. Chem. Educ. 2026, 103, 1, 441–448: Figure 1. Example total ion chromatogram of volatile compounds and retention times." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_J_Chem_Educ_2026_103_1_441_448_Figure_1_Example_total_ion_chromatogram_of_volatile_compounds_and_retention_times_fa3c745c20.jpeg 225w," sizes="100vw" width="1500" height="1041"></p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/J_Chem_Educ_2026_103_1_441_448_Figure_2_Example_SIM_ions_of_each_volatile_compound_fd665d9c8c.jpeg" alt="J. Chem. Educ. 2026, 103, 1, 441–448: Figure 2. Example SIM ions of each volatile compound." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_J_Chem_Educ_2026_103_1_441_448_Figure_2_Example_SIM_ions_of_each_volatile_compound_fd665d9c8c.jpeg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="1500" height="613"></p><h4><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4><p>Students met learning outcomes and gained fundamental instrumental knowledge and hands-on experience through this experiment as they explored the concepts of chromatography and mass spectrometry. While students who completed this experiment had previous experience with GC-MS, this experiment introduced a new way of generating data reports. Students had to explain their conclusions based on these data reports as part of their postlab assignment, which provided firsthand practice of data analysis and communication skills. Trends in student results indicated that the experiment is very robust and reproducible, leading to a high success rate for students. This experiment offers a variety of modifications for instructors based on the number of students, student skill level, and resources available.</p></div>

Introducing Headspace Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry to Undergraduate Chemistry Students from a Forensic Toxicology Perspective

Article

Webinars

Health

Scientific article

Toxicology

Science and research

A unique company dedicated to serving science helping our customers drive productivity and accelerate results. Through our premier brands – Thermo Scientific, Applied Biosystems, Invitrogen, Fisher Scientific and Unity Lab Services.

Thermo Fisher Scientific

Everything from the world of analytical chemistry in one place. We connect people in solving their problems. At Labrulez you will find all the necessary information easily, quickly and clearly. Stop searching and start finding.

LabRulez

Agilent / Pfeiffer Dry Pump, MVP Dry Pump, G3870-80051 (Tested)

Oil-free Agilent/Pfeiffer MVP Dry Pump G3870-80051 provides clean, stable vacuum for GC/MS 5973/5975/5977A-C. Ideal for routine EI/PCI use; not recommended for ammonia CI.

Agilent MVP Dry Pump G3870-80051 ensures clean, reliable foreline vacuum for GC/MS 5973/5975/5977A-C. Perfect for EI/PCI use; not suitable for ammonia CI workflows.

Agilent/Pfeiffer MVP Dry Pump G3870-80051 delivers clean, oil-free pumping for GC/MS 5973/5975/5977A-C. Reliable, low-maintenance, and ideal for EI/PCI—excluding ammonia CI.

Agilent Lifter tray assembly, for G1888A, 410105003 (New)

Agilent Lifter Tray Assembly (410105003) for G1888A sampler delivers precise vial lifting and smooth automation, ensuring reliable sample introduction in GC workflows.

Agilent S/SL-EPC Inlet, 0–100 PSIG, G3452-60800 (New)

The Agilent S/SL-EPC Inlet (G3452-60800) is a genuine OEM split/splitless (S/SL) inlet with electronic pressure control (EPC) designed for Agilent 7890 Gas Chromatographs.

Bazaar products from category Spare parts from Agilent Technologies - page 17

Related content

Hexane in Food: When Processing Chemistry Meets Public Health

Introducing Headspace Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry to Undergraduate Chemistry Students from a Forensic Toxicology Perspective

Webinars LabRulezGCMS Week 08/2026