<h3><strong>Introduction</strong></h3><p><strong>MOSH and MOAH analysis remains one of the most challenging and closely scrutinized areas in food and packaging safety testing. With evolving regulations, updated standards such as ISO 20122:2024, and increasing expectations for data quality and throughput, laboratories are under constant pressure to deliver accurate, reproducible, and compliant results.</strong></p><p>To help laboratories navigate this complexity, <strong>Thermo Fisher Scientific and SampleQ </strong>hosted an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/webinar/5817"><strong>Ask the Experts</strong></a> session focused entirely on MOSH/MOAH analysis using <strong>LC-GC-FID and GC×GC-FID/MS</strong> workflows. Analytical specialists addressed real-world questions from scientists and lab managers—covering sample preparation, quality control, internal standards, data processing, and system selection.</p><p>This blog brings together the most important expert insights and practical guidance from that session, providing a valuable reference for anyone responsible for MOSH/MOAH testing.</p><h3><strong>Why MOSH/MOAH analysis is so challenging</strong></h3><p>Mineral Oil Saturated Hydrocarbons (MOSH) and Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MOAH) are complex mixtures rather than single compounds. Their broad carbon number distribution, co-elution with natural matrix components, and sensitivity to sample preparation steps make analysis technically demanding.</p><p>At the same time, <strong>regulatory scrutiny continues to increase</strong>, particularly for MOAH due to potential carcinogenicity. <strong>Laboratories must therefore balance:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Regulatory compliance</strong></li><li><strong>Robust quantification</strong></li><li><strong>Reliable identification of markers</strong></li><li><strong>High sample throughput</strong></li></ul><p>The Ask the Experts session focused on how modern, integrated workflows can help labs meet all these demands.</p><h3><strong>Are MOSH/MOAH sample preparation steps matrix dependent?</strong></h3><p>One of the most common questions from laboratories is whether MOSH/MOAH sample preparation can be standardized across all matrices.</p><p><strong>The expert answer: it depends on the matrix—and validation is essential.</strong></p><p><strong>For fats and oils, certain steps are always required:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Saponification</strong></li><li><strong>Epoxidation</strong></li></ul><p><strong>However, alumina (Alox) clean-up is matrix dependent. Practical comparisons show that:</strong></p><ul><li>Some matrices benefit from Alox clean-up</li><li>Others may suffer from analyte loss if Alox is applied unnecessarily</li></ul><p>For non-fat matrices, sample preparation must be carefully selected, and <strong>method validation is critical</strong> to ensure accuracy and recovery.</p><p><strong>Key takeaway:</strong> There is no universal sample prep recipe for MOSH/MOAH. Laboratories must adapt workflows to their matrices while staying aligned with ISO 20122 guidance.</p><h3><strong>Managing multiple sample prep options in a busy lab</strong></h3><p>Many labs analyze a wide variety of matrices daily. Running different sample prep workflows manually can be time-consuming and error-prone.</p><p><strong>Experts highlighted how software-driven workflows help solve this challenge:</strong></p><ul><li>Multiple sample prep methods can run in the <strong>same sequence</strong></li><li>Optional steps (such as Alox clean-up) can be <strong>toggled per sample</strong></li><li>Overlapping methods maximize instrument utilization</li><li>Analysts only need to weigh samples and load reagents—automation handles the rest</li></ul><p><strong>E-workflows</strong> simplify method selection and ensure the correct prep is applied every time, reducing training requirements and minimizing human error.</p><p><strong>For lab managers, this translates into:</strong></p><ul><li>Higher throughput</li><li>More consistent results</li><li>Less hands-on time for skilled analysts</li></ul><h3><strong>Which internal standard is best for MOAH quantification?</strong></h3><p>Internal standard selection is critical for reliable MOAH quantification. The experts addressed this directly, referencing extensive comparative studies.</p><p><strong>Three candidates were evaluated:</strong></p><ul><li>1-Methylnaphthalene (1-MN)</li><li>2-Methylnaphthalene (2-MN)</li><li><strong>Tert-butylbenzene (TBB)</strong></li></ul><p>Based on <strong>repeatability, reproducibility, recovery, and accuracy</strong>, <strong>TBB emerged as the clear winner</strong> and is now specified in <strong>ISO 20122</strong>.</p><h3><strong>Why TBB?</strong></h3><ul><li>More stable behavior across sample prep steps</li><li>Better overall performance in routine analysis</li><li>Improved consistency between laboratories</li></ul><p>For labs updating or validating MOSH/MOAH methods, aligning internal standards with ISO recommendations is strongly advised.</p><h3><strong>How should ISO criteria for internal standard recovery be interpreted?</strong></h3><p>A frequent point of confusion is how to interpret internal standard recovery limits defined in ISO methods.</p><p><strong>The experts clarified an important distinction:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Recovery criteria apply to direct injections of internal standards</strong></li><li>All components should fall within <strong>90–110%</strong> of the quantification standard</li><li><strong>Perylene</strong> is allowed a slightly broader range (<strong>80–100%</strong>)</li></ul><p><strong>In real samples, internal standard recoveries can vary due to legitimate chemical effects:</strong></p><ul><li>Epoxidation may reduce perylene</li><li>Alox clean-up can reduce cholestane</li><li>Saponification may affect methylnaphthalenes</li><li>Some hydrocarbons may be naturally present in the matrix</li></ul><p><strong>Bottom line:</strong> Deviations in sample recoveries do not automatically indicate method failure. Understanding the chemistry behind each step is key to correct interpretation.</p><h3><strong>Do you still need LC-GC-FID if you have GC×GC-MS?</strong></h3><p>As GC×GC-MS becomes more accessible, many labs ask whether it can replace LC-GC-FID entirely.</p><p><strong>According to current EURL guidance:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>GC×GC is primarily intended for identification</strong>, not quantification</li><li>Quantification using GC×GC-FID is technically possible but <strong>not yet recommended</strong></li><li><strong>LC-GC-FID remains the reference technique for MOSH/MOAH quantification</strong></li></ul><p><strong>GC×GC-MS plays a complementary role by:</strong></p><ul><li>Confirming the presence of aromatic markers and MOSH markers like hopanes, steranes and particular naphthenes</li><li>Differentiating mineral oil components from biogenic interferences</li><li>Supporting risk assessment and regulatory discussions</li></ul><p><strong>For now, the most robust approach is a combined workflow</strong>:</p><ul><li>LC-GC-FID for quantification</li><li>GC×GC-FID/MS for confirmation and identification</li></ul><h3><strong>Using specific ion masses for marker identification in GC×GC</strong></h3><p>GC×GC-MS offers powerful identification capabilities when used correctly.</p><p><strong>Experts highlighted that:</strong></p><ul><li>The <strong>EURL provides recommended ion masses</strong> for key MOAH subgroups</li><li>Selective ion chromatograms (SICs) can be generated for markers such as:<ul><li>Naphthalenes</li><li>Hopanes</li><li>Steranes</li><li>DIPNs</li></ul></li></ul><p><strong>Using multiple SIC views alongside total ion chromatograms (TICs) allows:</strong></p><ul><li>Faster confirmation of markers</li><li>Clear differentiation from interferences</li><li>More confident reporting of MOAH presence</li></ul><p>This approach significantly improves interpretability compared to relying on TICs alone.</p><h3><strong>How is GC×GC-MS data processed efficiently?</strong></h3><p>One concern with GC×GC-MS is the perceived complexity of data handling.</p><p><strong>The experts demonstrated a streamlined workflow:</strong></p><ul><li>Instrument control and acquisition remain in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/products/76"><strong>Chromeleon S/W</strong></a></li><li>Raw data are automatically exported for GC×GC processing</li><li>Templates are applied to identify known marker regions</li><li>Results are organized by vial, run, and detector channel</li></ul><p><strong>This structured approach ensures:</strong></p><ul><li>Consistent marker identification</li><li>Reduced manual data handling</li><li>Faster reporting despite large data volumes</li></ul><p>For labs new to GC×GC, standardized templates and automated processing significantly reduce the learning curve.</p><h3><strong>Comparing FID and MS chromatograms: why it matters</strong></h3><p>Accurate comparison between FID and MS data is critical when combining quantification and identification.</p><p><strong>Thanks to synchronized acquisition:</strong></p><ul><li>FID and MS chromatograms are recorded <strong>simultaneously</strong></li><li>First-dimension retention times are identical</li><li>Second-dimension alignment is highly accurate</li></ul><p><strong>This enables:</strong></p><ul><li>Direct correlation of quantified FID regions with identified MS markers</li><li>Greater confidence in results</li><li>Stronger defensibility during audits and regulatory review</li></ul><h3><strong>Why use a single quadrupole MS instead of TOF-MS?</strong></h3><p>Time-of-flight MS is often associated with GC×GC due to its high scan speed. However, experts explained why <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/products?category=19&amp;manufacturerItems=3"><strong>single quadrupole MS</strong> </a>can be a practical alternative.</p><p><strong>By optimizing scan speed:</strong></p><ul><li>Single quadrupole MS can capture sufficient data points</li><li>Complexity and cost are reduced</li><li>Compliance with EURL guidance is maintained</li></ul><p>For many routine MOSH/MOAH applications, this offers an excellent balance between performance and operational efficiency.</p><h3><strong>Is offline sample preparation better for GC×GC?</strong></h3><p>There is no universal answer—workflow design depends on laboratory needs.</p><p><strong>Integrated systems offer:</strong></p><ul><li>Minimal user intervention</li><li>Reduced risk of contamination</li><li>Streamlined operation</li></ul><p><strong>Separate systems allow:</strong></p><ul><li>Parallel operation</li><li>Higher overall throughput in some labs</li></ul><p>The best choice depends on sample volume, staffing, and analytical priorities.</p><h3><strong>Final thoughts: Building a future-proof MOSH/MOAH workflow</strong></h3><p>MOSH/MOAH analysis is evolving rapidly, but some principles remain constant:</p><ul><li>Robust quantification still relies on LC-GC-FID</li><li>GC×GC-FID/MS adds critical confirmation power</li><li>Automation and software workflows reduce complexity</li><li>Alignment with ISO and EURL guidance ensures defensibility</li></ul><p>By combining expert knowledge with integrated technology, laboratories can confidently meet today’s regulatory requirements—while preparing for what comes next.</p><p>If you’re looking to optimize or future-proof your MOSH/MOAH analysis, the insights from this Ask the Experts session provide a strong foundation for success.</p><ul><li><strong>Watch the free webinar on demand: </strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/webinar/5817"><strong>Talk to an expert about our barrier-free analysis of MOSH/MOAH</strong></a></li><li><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>&nbsp;#automation #MOSH/MOAH</li></ul><blockquote><h4><strong>Petra Gerhards</strong></h4><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>

Ask the Experts: Practical Answers to Today’s Biggest MOSH/MOAH Analysis Questions

<p><strong>🎤 Presenter:</strong> James Harynuk (University of Alberta)</p><p>💾 <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/O_6_Harynuk_f005bdafaf.pdf"><strong>PDF presentation</strong></a></p><h3><strong>Abstract</strong></h3><p><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?instrumentationItems=3-2"><strong>GC×GC- MS</strong></a><strong> shines when doing non-target analysis, and is an incredibly important tool for studying human health, human exposures to exogenous compounds, and transformations of compounds released into the environment. The enhanced separation and expanded separation space permits us to deliver very pure peaks to the mass spectrometer, free from many coelutions and also free from bleed from the primary column. This pure peak then results in a much cleaner, high quality mass spectrum, regardless of the mass spectrometer used. If a high resolution mass spectrometer is used, we then know the exact mass (and thus elemental composition) of every ion in the spectrum.&nbsp;</strong></p><p>This is a truly important tool for studying these problems. The inspiration for this work lies in the problem of what to do with unknown unknowns – those compounds not in any library? We have been exploring new, simple ways to improve the consistency in our reporting of compounds in non-target analyses. Using a combination of a user library and relatively simple tools, we can ensure that we always recognize the same compounds across various samples and sample types, even if we do not know exactly what the compound is. This should improve the quality of downstream data analysis, and potentially help standardize some of the tools used in GC×GC-MS data processing.</p><h3><strong>Video Transcription</strong></h3><p>Today I want to talk about some of the ideas we’ve been exploring to improve our data quality. The theme is a bit unusual: <strong>down is the new up</strong> — in other words, simplifying some parts of the workflow can actually move us forward.</p><p>My lab has been using <strong>two-dimensional GC–MS</strong> for quite a while across a wide range of applications. This technique is especially useful for <strong>complex samples</strong> such as petroleum, environmental samples, omics studies, foods, flavors, and similar matrices. In these kinds of samples, the questions are often straightforward but difficult to answer analytically: are there any harmful compounds present, any regulated compounds, or any compounds that indicate exposure or are otherwise important?</p><p>GC×GC–MS is such a powerful tool for these challenges because it provides an <strong>expanded separation space</strong>. That gives us several major benefits. First, we obtain cleaner, purer peaks going into the mass spectrometer, which leads to <strong>higher-quality mass spectra</strong> than we would get from one-dimensional GC. That in turn improves compound identification. If you combine this with high-resolution MS, the possibilities become even stronger.</p><p>We also benefit from better sensitivity, although that is not my main focus today. Another very important feature is that GC×GC produces <strong>interpretable retention patterns</strong>. With enough knowledge and experience, you can often look at the position of peaks relative to each other and immediately infer a lot about the sample. An experienced analyst can read a chromatogram almost like reading a newspaper.</p><p>The challenge, however, is an old one. We may have <strong>hundreds or thousands of peaks per sample</strong>, and often <strong>hundreds or even thousands of samples</strong> in a project. We rarely have enough standards, and even if we did, analyzing them all would take far too much time. We therefore need a <strong>coherent, aligned peak table</strong> or feature list, and we need <strong>consistent peak identification</strong> across all samples.</p><p>What I mean by consistency is simple: if compound X appears in one sample, it should always be labeled as compound X, and nothing else should be labeled that way. If compound X appears in another sample, it should receive the same name again. If it is absent from a sample, no unrelated compound should mistakenly get that label. That is what we need for meaningful downstream analysis.</p><p>The question is: how do we achieve this <strong>quickly and reliably</strong>, without spending endless hours manually curating peak tables?</p><p>The data I’m showing comes from two projects. One is an Arctic oil transport and environmental fate project, where we are looking at spilled oils and marine fuels as Arctic shipping increases. The second involves plant volatiles from peas, studying how water, nitrogen, and other conditions affect pea growth and the VOCs they produce.</p><p>If we look at the basic workflow many people still use, it is something like this: run the samples, perform peak finding for each sample, run library searches, and then generate a peak table. But very quickly, problems appear. What do we do with peaks near the signal-to-noise cutoff? What about peaks with poor library matches? And how do we reconcile all the different peak tables across many samples?</p><p>A lot of groups are developing custom solutions, and some of these are now appearing in commercial software. But one thing I wanted for my students — most of whom do not want to code — was a workflow that uses the <strong>tools already available in the software</strong>, without requiring special scripts from scratch.</p><p>The workflow we’ve increasingly adopted relies on <strong>retention indices</strong> and the <strong>IGS peak identification grading system</strong> available in the LECO high-resolution workflow. The idea is simple: along with our samples, we run an n-alkane standard to calibrate the retention index method. That allows us to calculate <strong>experimental retention indices</strong> for all peaks. We can then filter library hits using retention index agreement, and further filter the results by retaining only peaks with good IGS scores, for example scores of 3 or better.</p><p>This approach dramatically improves the quality of the peak table. In one pea sample, for example, a standard workflow gave us around <strong>800 peaks</strong>, many of which had poor library matches or no useful retention index information. After applying retention index filtering and IGS scoring, that was reduced to <strong>146 peaks</strong> that we could be reasonably confident about. The process is automated and straightforward.</p><p>This also reveals one of the main issues in complex mixtures: <strong>isomers</strong>. For example, in a petroleum sample, several alkylbenzenes may all receive slightly different names across different samples, despite being the same underlying feature. This creates a major problem when trying to align peak tables. You may see the same compound identified as 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene in one sample, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene in another, and something else in a third.</p><p>The retention index plus IGS strategy already helps a lot, but it still struggles with some isomeric cases and does not solve everything. In particular, it doesn’t address what I call <strong>unknown knowns</strong>: peaks that we see repeatedly, expect to be present, but still cannot identify definitively.</p><p>To deal with this, we began building a <strong>custom mass spectral library</strong>, including spectra of standards, local retention index values, and these unknown but recurring peaks. If a compound is well-behaved chromatographically, has a good signal-to-noise ratio, appears in multiple technical replicates or samples, and has a reproducible retention index, we add it to the library. Even if we do not know exactly what it is, we can still assign it a unique code and track it consistently.</p><p>That is important. A peak does not need to have a final chemical identity to be useful. If it shows up every time, we can give it a placeholder name and ensure it is always recognized consistently. If it becomes important later, we can return to it and identify it properly.</p><p>Once we started using our own custom library with locally measured retention indices, things improved significantly. We obtained <strong>more confident high-quality identifications</strong>, more peaks with reliable retention index data, and much smaller retention index errors. More importantly, it became very easy to identify the <strong>problem peaks</strong> — the few peaks that still needed correction because they were likely isomers or misassigned features.</p><p>By inspecting retention index deviations, we could quickly spot where the software had assigned the wrong identity. Instead of manually reviewing everything, we could focus only on the handful of peaks that truly required attention. Correcting those few peaks made the retention index agreement even tighter.</p><p>Another major advantage of the custom library is that it improves <strong>consistency across samples</strong>. Peaks that previously received random names or numeric codes from the general NIST search now receive the same identity in every sample, making alignment and downstream chemometric analysis far easier.</p><p>So, the main message is this: <strong>build your own MS library</strong>, include <strong>retention index data collected on your own system</strong>, and <strong>search that first</strong>. That allows you to apply a much tighter retention index window and improves confidence in isomer assignments. Also, add your recurring unknown peaks — call them whatever you want, even “Bob” if necessary — so they can be recognized consistently across your dataset.</p><p>Apply IGS filtering when possible. If you are not using the same high-resolution workflow, you can still implement similar logic in other software or with simple scripts. The result is <strong>better peak tables in less time</strong>, more reliable chemometric analysis, and much less manual data curation.</p><p>And one final point: learning a bit of <strong>Excel automation or simple coding</strong> is extremely helpful. It can save a great deal of time when working through these data-heavy workflows.</p><p>With that, I’d like to thank <strong>LECO</strong> for their support with instrumentation and software, our major funders, and the students in the lab working on the Arctic oil and plant volatile projects.</p><blockquote><p><strong>This text has been automatically transcribed from a video presentation using AI technology. It may contain inaccuracies and is not guaranteed to be 100% correct.</strong></p></blockquote>

Leveraging Local Libraries for Positively Parsimonious Peak Tables (James Harynuk, MDCW 2026)

<p><strong>Our Library never stops expanding. What are the most recent contributions to LabRulezGCMS Library in the week of 16th March 2026? Check out new documents from the field of the gas phase, especially GC and GC/MS techniques!</strong></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size:20px;">👉 </span><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library"><span style="font-size:20px;"><strong>SEARCH THE LARGEST REPOSITORY OF DOCUMENTS ABOUT GCMS AND RELATED TECHNIQUES</strong></span></a></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><strong>👉 Need info about different analytical techniques?</strong> Peek into <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library"><strong>LabRulezLCMS</strong></a> or <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://icpms.labrulez.com/library"><strong>LabRulezICPMS</strong></a> libraries.</p></blockquote><p>This week we bring you posters by <strong>Agilent Technologies / ASMS </strong>and <strong>MDCW / William &amp; Mary, </strong>application note by<strong> Shimadzu </strong>and other document by <strong>Thermo Fisher Scientific!</strong></p><h3><strong>1. Agilent Technologies / ASMS: Analysis of Extractables and Leachables in Catheters Using Accurate Mass Libraries and High-Resolution GC/MS and LC/MS</strong></h3><ul><li>Poster</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/ps_7250_revident_extractables_leachables_asms_2025_tp_317_en_agilent_e6d3b2e923.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><p>Materials used in the production of medical devices contain substances that have the potential to leach from the devices. Extractables and leachables (E&amp;L) represent a range of structurally diverse compounds including antioxidants, UV absorbers, dyes, catalysts, plasticizers and polymer degradation products. Therefore, both liquid and gas chromatography techniques coupled with mass spectrometry detectors (LC/MS and GC/MS) are utilized to achieve a comprehensive chemical characterization. Application-specific accurate mass libraries combined with an efficient screening workflow, helps to increase confidence in compound identification that saves time on reviewing data while focused on E/L relevant compounds. In this study, we analyzed catheters extracts using high-resolution MS and performed data analysis using accurate mass libraries.</p><h4><strong>Experimental</strong></h4><p>Catheters from three suppliers were used in this study. Catheter A was made from PVC, and did not include DEHP, DINP, BPA or natural rubber latex. Catheter B was made with natural rubber latex base and silicone elastomer coating, and there was no claim to be phthalate or BPA free. Catheter C was a silicone-coated latex catheter made with natural rubber latex base and no DEHP or BPA. E&amp;L standards were obtained from AChemTek. Catheters were extracted with ethanol:water 1:1 solvent at 37 ˚C for 24 and 48 hours as well as 7 days and analyzed using GC/Q-TOF and <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=Revident+LC%2FQ-TOF"><strong>LC/Q-TOF systems</strong></a>. The GC/MS analysis was performed using the <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=8890+GC"><strong>8890 GC</strong></a> coupled to the <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=7250+GC%2FQ-TOF"><strong>7250 Q-TOF</strong></a> and the new Agilent low bleed DB-5Q column.</p><h4><strong>Results and Discussion</strong></h4><h5><strong>Accurate Mass E&amp;L Library for GC/Q-TOF</strong></h5><p>To create a new Agilent accurate mass E&amp;L Personal Compound Database Library (PCDL) for GC/Q-TOF, over 400 spectra have been collected for E&amp;L compounds. All accurate mass fragment ions in each spectrum have been annotated with formulas based on accurate mass information and isotope ratios (Figure 3). The fragment formula annotations were then verified and converted to the theoretical m/z.</p><h4><strong>Conclusions</strong></h4><ul><li>A combined workflow for the analysis of extractables and leachables by high-resolution GC/MS and LC/MS was developed using catheter extracts.</li><li>Both GC/MS and LC/MS techniques were necessary to cover a comprehensive list of E&amp;L compounds. Although several E&amp;L compounds were detected by<br>both GC/MS and LC/MS, in most cases hydrocarbons, most plasticizers, and some antioxidants were more amenable to GC/MS.</li></ul><h3><strong>2. MDCW / William &amp; Mary: A sustainable approach to nontargeted analysis using hydrogen as a carrier gas for GC×GC</strong></h3><ul><li>Poster</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/P_13_Fisher_2c50f2c420.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><p>Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) is a separation technique used to separate complex mixtures based on two different retention mechanisms, usually polarity and volatility. A nontargeted approach is commonly used for a separation technique such as GC×GC. This type of approach means that instead of looking for one or two specific components and disregarding the rest of the sample, the whole sample can be viewed exhaustively. This approach is more applicable for forensic cases especially, where the identity or composition of the sample is unknown. It is also a more sustainable approach because only one run is needed to have the full characterization of a sample instead of needing to run a sample multiple times with a different target analyte each time.</p><h4><strong>EXPERIMENTAL</strong></h4><ul><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/products/37"><strong>LECO’s Pegasus BT4D</strong></a> instrument was used for this project.</li></ul><h4><strong>RESULTS</strong></h4><p><strong>AGREEprep Comparisons:</strong> The overall scores for the two methods were 0.44 and 0.52 for helium and hydrogen, respectively. This means that the hydrogen method is more sustainable than the helium method. The criteria breakdown in Figure 6 shows the 10 different criteria used to score the methods, including sample throughput, sample preparation steps, and sustainable material usage, namely carrier gas choice.</p><h4><strong>CONCLUSIONS</strong></h4><p>The Restek EZGZ Method Translator can be used to provide three possible hydrogen methods for any given helium method. After inputting the values of a helium method, the respective hydrogen values are given for three possible methods, each prioritizing something different: translate, efficiency, and speed. The translate method was chosen as the best choice.&nbsp;</p><p>The hydrogen method achieved a higher score on the AGREEprep metric, meaning that this method is more sustainable that the helium method. This better score is solely due to the carrier gas change – everything else in the methods stayed constant.&nbsp;</p><p>Hydrogen as a carrier gas allows for higher sample throughput and faster run times. It can also be a renewable resource, made through the electrolysis of water in a laboratory using a generator.&nbsp;</p><p>A nontargeted approach is inherently greener than a targeted approach because instead of re-running a sample multiple times to analyze a different component each time, the whole picture was captured from the beginning and can be looked at through a different lens to analyze a new component.</p><h3><strong>3. Shimadzu: Analysis of PFAS in Textiles Based on EN 17681-1 and EN 17681-2</strong></h3><ul><li>Application note</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/an_01_01108_en_e04fe25939.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><h5><strong>User Benefits</strong></h5><ul><li>Combining LCMS and GCMS enables the determination of PFAS below threshold limits in textiles.&nbsp;</li><li>Spike recovery test shows good percentage recoveries of all compounds (70–130 %) that are at or below the EU POPs threshold limit (25 ppb).</li><li>LabSolutions software offers integrated control over GCMS and LCMS for more efficient testing and data analysis.</li></ul><p>Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are used in a wide range of applications because of their useful properties, such as heat resistance and water repellency. However, PFAS are also extremely stable substances that resist degradation and accumulate in the environment, which has led to concerns about their effects on humans. Since eliminating sources of PFAS is essential to prevent them from accumulating in the environment and in living organisms, many countries are passing laws that restrict the production, distribution, and use of PFAS in products. For example, the EU POPs Regulation sets a permitted threshold of up to 0.025 mg/kg (25 ppb) for certain PFAS (including PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS) in substances, mixtures, and products<sup>1)</sup>.&nbsp;</p><p>EN 17681 is a European standard that describes methods for determining PFAS in textiles. The EN 17681 standard is divided into two parts according to the target compounds and methods. EN 17681-1 describes an LC/MS/MS method that targets ionic PFAS, and EN 17681-2 describes a GC/MS(/MS) method that targets certain semi-volatile and volatile neutral PFAS. A 2025 revision of EN 17681-1 changed the sample preparation method for more efficient PFAS extraction<sup>2),3)</sup>.&nbsp;</p><p>This Application News describes the analysis of the target compounds shown in Table 1 based on the EN 17681-1 and EN 17681-2 standards, using both LC/MS/MS and GC/MS/MS.</p><h4><strong>&nbsp;EN 17681-1 (LC/MS/MS) Analysis Conditions</strong></h4><p>Analysis was performed using the <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=1&amp;search=LCMS-8050RX"><strong>LCMS-8050RX triple quadrupole mass spectrometer</strong></a> (Fig. 1, left). The analysis conditions used are shown in Table 3. Analyzing PFAS necessitates caution because PFAS can leach from the analytical system, the mobile phase or other sources. PFAS contamination from the system was minimized by attaching a delay column between the mixer and autosampler. The mobile phase was also prepared using PFAS grade reagents.</p><h4><strong>EN 17681-2 (GC/MS(/MS)) Analysis Conditions</strong></h4><p>Analysis was performed using a <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=1&amp;search=GCMS-TQ8050+NX"><strong>GCMS-TQ8050 NX triple quadrupole mass spectrometer</strong></a> (Fig. 1, right) that was equipped with a boosted efficiency ion source (BEIS). The BEIS optimizes the electron beam focus for maximum ionization efficiency, enabling reliable analysis of PFAS at very low levels. The analysis conditions used are shown in Table 4.</p><h4><strong>Results from Analysis of Ski Wear</strong></h4><p>Old ski clothing was used as a sample. The results obtained from analyzing this sample by the EN 17681-1 (LC/MS/MS) method are shown in Fig. 11. To investigate the effect of the EN 17681- 1:2025 update, analysis was performed using both the preupdate (EN 17681-1:2022) and post-update (EN 17681-1:2025) sample preparation methods. The alkaline hydrolysis treatment used by the EN 17681-1:2025 method dramatically increased the amounts of NMeFOSE, 6:2 FTOH, 8:2 FTOH, and 10:2 FTOH that were detected, and these compounds were detected at levels above the upper limit of their respective calibration curve ranges. This shows that PFAS extraction is improved by using the updated EN 17681-1:2025 sample preparation method. Of the 33 compounds targeted by the LC/MS/MS method, 20 were detected in the sample.&nbsp;</p><p>Analyzing the sample by GC/MS/MS using the EN 17681-2 method detected 8 out of the 12 compounds targeted by the EN 17681-2 method. Of these, 8:2 FTOH and 10:2 FTOH were detected at levels above the upper limit of their respective calibration curve ranges (Fig. 12).</p><h4><strong>Conclusion&nbsp;</strong></h4><p>The analysis of PFAS in textiles was performed according to EN 17681-1 and EN 17681-2 standards, utilizing the LCMS-8050RX and GCMS-TQ8050 NX systems. By combining LC/MS/MS analysis and GC/MS analysis, all target compounds were successfully measured at levels of 25 ppb or less. Spike recovery test at the EU POPs threshold limit (25 ppb) also demonstrated good percentage recovery (70–130 %) for all compounds. Results also showed that PFAS extraction was improved by using the EN 17681-1:2025 sample preparation method, which was updated in 2025.</p><h3><strong>4. Thermo Fisher Scientific: Fast on-line monitoring of flare gases</strong></h3><ul><li>Other document</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/fast_on_line_monitoring_of_flare_gases_wp1635_27fa9188ff.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><h4><strong>Measurement of flare gas streams by process mass spectrometry</strong></h4><p>Process mass spectrometry (MS) is particularly suited to the measurement of flare gas streams because it offers accurate, fast, multicomponent analysis. Table 1 shows an example of a flare gas stream containing hydrogen, nitrogen and hydrocarbons up to C6. Analysis of these eleven components will typically be performed in just 20 seconds, allowing one mass spectrometer to monitor more than one flare, depending on the distances involved. Alternatively, one MS can be used to measure process streams and flare streams, even though the composition and concentrations may be very different.</p><h4><strong>Advantages of magnetic sector MS&nbsp;</strong></h4><p>Thermo Fisher Scientific manufactures both quadrupole and magnetic sector mass spectrometers. Over thirty years of industrial experience have shown the magnetic sector based analyzer offers the best performance for industrial online gas analysis. <strong>Thermo Scientific™ Prima PRO process mass spectrometers</strong> (Figure 1) offer ideal capabilities for industrial gas analysis.&nbsp;</p><p>Key advantages of magnetic sector analyzers include improved precision, accuracy, long intervals between calibrations and resistance to contamination. Typically, analytical precision is between 2 and 10 times better than a quadrupole analyzer, depending on the gases analyzed and complexity of the mixture.&nbsp;</p><p>Neutral gas atoms and molecules are first converted into positively charged ions in the Prima PRO MS ion source. This is an enclosed type for high sensitivity, minimum background interference and maximum contamination resistance. It is a high-energy (1000 eV) analyzer that offers extremely rugged performance in the presence of gases and vapors that have the potential for contaminating the internal vacuum components. Prima PRO MS has a proven track record of monitoring high percent level concentrations of organic compounds without experiencing drift or contamination.</p><p>Ions are then accelerated through a flight tube, where they are separated by their mass to charge ratios in a magnetic field of variable strength. Since the magnetic sector mass spectrometer produces a focused ion beam at the detector, the peak shape obtained is ‘flat-topped’ and uniform response is observed over a finite mass width. As the height of the peak is directly proportional to the number of ions striking the detector it is also directly proportional to the concentration of the component being measured. As long as the measurement is taken anywhere on the peak’s flat top, high precision analysis will be observed.</p><p>The Prima PRO MS’ ability to measure over a wide dynamic range is critically important if the varying composition levels in flare gas are to be measured accurately. The Prima PRO MS has been independently evaluated by EffecTech UK, an independent specialist company providing accredited calibration and testing services to the energy and power industries for gas quality, flow and total energy metering. It is accredited to internationally recognized ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standards; this specifies the general requirements for the competence to carry out tests and/ or calibrations, including sampling.</p><h4><strong>Summary&nbsp;</strong></h4><p>Magnetic sector MS, as evidenced by the Prima PRO process MS performance, provides fast, accurate on-line analysis of flare gas composition. The inherent power of magnetic sector mass spectrometry, combined with the flexibility of GasWorks software, enables one Prima PRO MS to monitor not only flare gas streams, but also multiple process streams. Root cause fault analysis is therefore greatly facilitated, by comparing the detailed composition data from the flare gas stream with that of the various process streams. As well as complete compositional analysis, Prima PRO MS provides accurate fuel gas properties, including LHV, HHV, density, specific gravity, Wobbe Index, stoichiometric air requirement and CARI. This ensures waste gases are burnt to complete combustion and unburned pollutants are not emitted from the flare.</p>

News from LabRulezGCMS Library - Week 12, 2026

Article

Product

Application

Video

Presentation

Science and research

Poster

The Multidimensional Chromatography (MDC) Workshop draws experts in this exciting field to share and discuss their research.

The Multidimensional Chromatography Workshop

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

DataApex

Agilent Technologies

LECO

Wasson-ECE Instrumentation

SelectScience

<p><strong>Measuring scattering samples with UV-VIS-NIR can be challenging for basic instruments. These samples will have diffuse reflectance or transmission and less light hitting your detector.</strong></p><p>In this presentation, we will discuss diffuse reflectance accessories (DRAs) for collecting all light in a measurement as well as Agilent's universal measurement accessory (UMA) for measuring the angular distribution of the reflected light.</p><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Scott Melis, PhD (Application Scientist, Agilent Technologies, Inc.)</p><p>Scott Melis has a PHD in Physics from Georgetown University in Washington, DC and started with Agilent in 2021 as a Molecular Spectroscopy Application Scientist. In his graduate work, Scott studied nanoparticle formation and growth for a variety of applications. Projects that he worked with include developing processes to deposit and characterize semiconducting molecular nano-cocrystals for use in optoelectronic devices as well as controlling polymer nanoparticle size through rapid mixing conditions.</p></blockquote>

Agilent Technologies: Measuring Diffuse Powders and Films With UV-VIS-NIR

Measuring Diffuse Powders and Films With UV-VIS-NIR

We will discuss diffuse reflectance accessories (DRAs) as well as Agilent's universal measurement accessory (UMA).

<div><div><div><div><div><div><article><div><div><div><div><div><div><article><div><div><div><div><div><div><article><div><div><div><div><div><div><p>Converting carbon oxides to methane for FID detection, enabling ppm-level CO and CO2 quantification.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></article></div></div></div></div></div></div></article></div></div></div></div></div></div></article></div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter:</strong> John Wasson</p><p>John Wasson has over 40 years of experience in Gas Chromatography and Chemical Instrumentation. He is President of Wasson-ECE Instrumentation, Inc.</p></blockquote>

Wasson-ECE Instrumentation: Free Webinar Series

Methanizers for Trace CO and CO2

Converting carbon oxides to methane for FID detection, enabling ppm-level CO and CO2 quantification.

<div><div><div><div><div><div><article><div><div><div><div><div><div><article><div><div><div><div><div><div><article><div><div><div><div><div><div><p>Compact gas chromatograph systems and integration with automated sampling equipment for fast analysis.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></article></div></div></div></div></div></div></article></div></div></div></div></div></div></article></div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter:</strong> John Wasson</p><p>John Wasson has over 40 years of experience in Gas Chromatography and Chemical Instrumentation. He is President of Wasson-ECE Instrumentation, Inc.</p></blockquote>

Micro-GCs - Introduction to and Use with Auto-samplers

Compact gas chromatograph systems and integration with automated sampling equipment for fast analysis.

<p><strong>Learn incredible tricks and tips for maximizing your experience with </strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.cz/products/305"><strong>Clarity Chromatography Software</strong></a><strong>. Dive into advanced functionalities and discover how to elevate your workflows.</strong></p><p><strong>We will closely look at Sequences and Calibrations.</strong></p><blockquote><p><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.dataapex.com/training_reservation/149189"><strong>Register Here</strong></a></p></blockquote>

DataApex Clarity software Tips & Tricks Webinar

Learn incredible tricks and tips for maximizing your experience with Clarity Chromatography Software

<div><div container-id="cq-colctrl-lt0" comp-id="A1"><div><p><strong>Silvia Aguiló Losa has been instrumental in bringing truly comprehensive mineral oil hydrocarbon (MOSH/MOAH) analysis into a routine testing environment at SGS Institut Fresenius (Berlin, Germany), using LECO’s two-dimensional gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometer (GCxGC-TOFMS) and dual flame ionization detector (FID) workflows.</strong></p><p>In this webinar, she will show how coupling GCxGC-TOFMS-FID technology with liquid chromatography techniques uncovers hidden interferences, resolves complex hydrocarbon “humps,” and provides the mass-spectral confirmation needed to avoid false positives and deliver robust, defensible results.</p><p>Silvia will share practical insights from her daily work at SGS, where LECO’s GCxGC technologies have enabled routine differentiation of MOSH/MOAH fractions, identification of critical markers and confident assessment of samples under increasing regulatory pressure.</p><p>Additionally, Silvia will discuss the updated MOH Guidance for GCxGC Analysis provided by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Processing Contaminants.</p><p>This session is ideal for food-safety, packaging, and compliance laboratories looking to elevate their MOSH/MOAH testing with workflows that are both comprehensive and operationally realistic for routine use.</p><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter: </strong>Silvia Aguiló Losa (Team Leader/Product Manager Mineral Oils Analysis, SGS Institut Fresnius GmbH)</p></blockquote></div></div></div>

LECO: What You Don’t See: Beyond Routine Analysis with LC–GCxGC-TOFMS–FID

What You Don’t See: Beyond Routine Analysis with LC–GCxGC-TOFMS–FID

Webinar on GCxGC-TOFMS-FID for MOSH/MOAH analysis, featuring SGS case studies, LC coupling, EU MOH guidance, and reliable workflows for routine labs.

Beyond Routine Analysis with LC–GCxGC-TOFMS–FID

<p><strong>Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) implementing differential-flow modulation (DFM) is reshaping the landscape of complex mixture analysis.</strong> <strong>This webinar unveils a next-generation GC×GC–MS/FID workflow designed for “high-resolution” allergen profiling in fragrances.</strong></p><p>The integrated data fusion approach merges the qualitative depth of MS with the quantitative robustness of FID, enabling extended linearity, total quantification, and confident identification of regulated compounds.</p><p>This unified strategy streamlines allergen verification and enhances compliance with the latest EU Regulation (2025/877), delivering a new level of analytical power, flexibility, and reliability for modern fragrance and allergen analysis.</p><p>This webinar provides an in-depth look at next-generation analytical strategies for detecting and quantifying fragrance allergens within complex raw materials. Focusing on GC×GC realized by differential-flow modulation, the session demonstrates how parallel MS/FID detection and raw data fusion enhances analytical performance by merging qualitative identification power with robust quantification.</p><p>Positioned within modern volatilomics, the workflow enables high-resolution volatile profiling, advanced fingerprinting, and efficient compliance with EU Regulation 2025/877. Case studies and data workflows illustrate how these multidimensional platforms support routine and regulatory fragrance-allergen assessment, pushing analytical capabilities beyond current standards.</p><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter: </strong>Chiara Emilia Irma Cordero (Professor of Food Chemistry, University of Turin)</p><p>Chiara Emilia Irma Cordero is Full Professor of Food Chemistry at the University of Turin, where she leads advanced research in multidimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC), mass spectrometry, volatilomics, and omics-based strategies for characterizing complex chemical profiles. Her work spans from food matrices to biological fluids, including also natural products, fragrance-related volatiles and regulated allergens, integrating untargeted and targeted workflows to generate high-resolution chemical fingerprints.</p><p>Her current research focuses on high-informative volatilomics, multidimensional separation platforms, and advanced workflows for quality, authenticity, and regulatory assessment.</p><p><strong>Presenter:&nbsp;</strong>Andrea Caratti (Assistant Professor of Food Chemistry, University of Turin)</p><p>Andrea is an Assistant Professor of Food Chemistry at the University of Turin. His research centers on comprehensive multidimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC, GC×2GC), mass spectrometry, volatilomics, and green analytical chemistry, with particular emphasis on high-resolution profiling of volatile organic compounds in foods, fragrances, biological fluids, and plants. His expertise includes solvent-free sampling techniques, advanced fingerprinting strategies, quantitative volatilomics, and MS/FID data-fusion workflows.</p></blockquote>

Agilent Technologies: Smarter Allergen Profiling Starts Here: Differential Flow GC×GC and MS/FID Data Fusion

Smarter Allergen Profiling Starts Here: Differential Flow GC×GC and MS/FID Data Fusion

Explore how DFM-based GC×GC and MS/FID fusion deliver a new level of analytical power, flexibility, and reliability to modern fragrance and allergen analysis.

Allergen Profiling: Differential Flow GC×GC & MS/FID

<div><div container-id="cq-colctrl-lt0" comp-id="A1"><div><p><strong>Take your Chromeleon Instrument Methods to the next level with this focused and practical session. This webinar is specifically designed for Thermo Scientific Chromeleon CDS users, who want to enhance their current skills and gain a better understanding of how to control instrument actions and apply dynamic sequence logic.</strong></p><h4><strong>Topics covered include:</strong></h4><ul><li><strong>Script editor overview:</strong> Understand the basics of writing and editing custom scripts</li><li><strong>Conditional statements:</strong> Learn how to use logic to make conditional decisions during runs and sequences</li><li><strong>Information logging:</strong> Record key instrument and method events in real time for extended audit trail coverage</li><li><strong>Custom sequence variables: </strong>Control sequence and instrument behavior and with user-defined fields to enrich meta data capture</li><li><strong>User-defined programs:</strong> Customize injection actions to support complex workflows</li><li><strong>Automated startup and shutdown: </strong>Create routines to prepare instruments for operation or safely power them down</li></ul><h4><strong>Why Attend:</strong></h4><p>Join this webinar to gain practical skills and expert tips for using Chromeleon CDS more effectively. Whether you’re new or experienced, you’ll learn how to streamline workflows and enhance your analytical instrument methods.</p><p><strong>Cannot attend the live broadcast?&nbsp;</strong></p><p><i>Please register anyway, and we will automatically send you the link to the recording.</i></p><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter: </strong>Peter Zipfell (Product Marketing Manager, Thermo Fisher Scientific)</p></blockquote></div></div></div>

Thermo Fisher Scientific: Get more from your Chromeleon Instrument Methods

Get more from your Chromeleon Instrument Methods

Join this webinar to gain practical skills and expert tips for using Chromeleon CDS more effectively.

<p><strong>Developing next‑generation energy storage systems demands a deeper, more precise understanding of electrochemical behavior, including how to optimize electrode composition and ensure chemical homogeneity throughout the electrode structure. Combining electrochemistry with Infrared and Raman spectroscopy offers a powerful approach for achieving these goals. Pairing these techniques with microscopy further enables micrometer-scale insights into chemical composition and distribution.</strong></p><p>This 20-minute TechTalk will explore how these capabilities come together with four key instruments that make this integrated approach possible: <strong>INVENIO, RAMANtouch, HYPERION II and VERTEX NEO R</strong>.</p><p>Join Dr. Sergey Shilov, Senior Application Scientist, Bruker Optics, as he shares his 40+ years of FTIR and Raman knowledge to inspire and accelerate your research in batteries, fuel cells, and advanced energy materials.</p><h4><strong>Key learning objectives:</strong></h4><ul><li>Understand spectroelectrochemical tools and workflows for probing reactions at electrodes and within electrolytes.</li><li>Learn how to optimize instrument setup and integration, including effective communication between potentiostats and spectrometers.</li><li>Understand how to apply fast chemical imaging techniques to visualize electrode surfaces and reaction dynamics.</li><li>Explore real‑world electrochemical case studies such as metal–organic complex oxidation, polymer distribution mapping, electrode degradation analysis, and SEI characterization in lithium metal batteries.</li></ul><h4><strong>Who should attend?</strong></h4><ul><li>Chemists, battery engineers, and scientists who are developing new materials for energy storage.</li></ul><h4><strong>Certificate of attendance</strong></h4><ul><li>If you attend the live TechTalk, you will automatically receive a certificate of attendance, including a learning outcomes summary, for continuing education purposes.</li><li>If you view the on-demand TechTalk, you can request a certificate of attendance by emailing editor@selectscience.net.</li></ul><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Dr. Sergey Shilov (Senior Application Scientist, Bruker Optics)</p><p>Dr. Sergey V. Shilov is a Senior Application Scientist and &nbsp;Product Manager for North America at Bruker Optics. Dr. Shilov is responsible for the support and development of new applications for the Bruker research FTIR systems. He received his Ph.D. in 1992 from the Russian Academy of Sciences in Polymer Physics. He has published 37 papers in peer-reviewed journals and his research interests include time-resolved FTIR spectroscopy, surface science, polymer, and life science applications.&nbsp;</p></blockquote>

SelectScience: Advancing energy storage with spectroelectrochemistry

Advancing energy storage with spectroelectrochemistry

How electrochemistry, FTIR, Raman spectroscopy, and microscopy enable advanced chemical insight into electrodes for next-generation energy storage systems.

<div><div container-id="cq-colctrl-lt0" comp-id="A1"><div><p><strong>This webinar, titled “Process Raman as a Reliable, Versatile Tool for Downstream Process Monitoring and mAb Production Control,” explores how process Raman spectroscopy can improve the efficiency of in-line monitoring of protein concentration.</strong></p><p>The presentation highlights how process Raman spectroscopy offers several advantages over traditional in-line UV-Vis analysis for process monitoring and metabolite production control. These advantages include both time and cost efficiencies, making Raman spectroscopy a powerful tool for enhancing downstream processes and production control.</p><h4><strong>You will learn:</strong></h4><ul><li>How process Raman spectroscopy is used for protein analysis</li><li>How to develop a Raman-based protein quantification model</li><li>The Raman model advantages over established UV-Vis monitoring practices</li></ul><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter: </strong>Nimesh Khadka, PhD (Sr. Product Application Specialist, Thermo Fisher Scientific)</p><p>Nimesh Khadka is a senior application scientist with at Thermo Fisher Scientific with specializing in analytical biochemistry, spectroscopy, and chemometrics. With more than 5 years of experience in process development and PAT, he currently champions Raman spectroscopy as a PAT for development of biotherapeutics therapeutics.</p><p>Nimesh completed his PhD at Utah State University focusing on enzymology, spectroscopy, and alternative bioenergy. In his postdoctoral training at Case Western Reserve University, Nimesh focused on the study of structural biology in biomolecules associated with eye pathologies. Through this extensive background, Nimesh has a deep understanding of the intricacies of biomolecular structures and their broad applications.</p></blockquote></div></div></div>

Thermo Fisher Scientific: Process Raman: A Reliable and Versatile Tool For Downstream Process Monitoring and Control For mAB Production

Process Raman: A Reliable and Versatile Tool For Downstream Process Monitoring and Control For mAB Production

How process Raman spectroscopy offers several advantages over traditional in-line UV-Vis analysis for process monitoring and metabolite production control. 

Process Raman For Downstream Process For mAB Production

<div><div container-id="cq-colctrl-lt0" comp-id="A1"><div><p><strong>There are as many solutions available for MOSH/MOAH analysis as there are matrices. Every matrix requires a special clean up. Maybe you are done with one step, maybe it requires several steps to accomplish a proper result.</strong></p><p>The EN16995 changes very often. You have questions about the changes you would like to know how to use GC X GC MS technology to qualify your results?</p><p>Ask our experts live!</p><h4><strong>Learning points</strong></h4><ul><li>An opportunity for you to ask our MOSH/MOAH experts any of your burning questions</li><li>The new Maurus Biedermann approach with GC X GC/MS</li></ul><h4><strong>Who should attend?</strong></h4><ul><li>Users looking to enhance their current MOSH/MOAH analysis</li><li>Users who are looking to overcome their current MOSH/MOAH analysis challenges within their laboratory</li><li>Users looking to gain more experience in MOSH/MOAH analysis</li><li>If you cannot attend this webinar please register to receive a link to the On Demand version the following day.</li></ul><blockquote><p><strong>Presenter:&nbsp;</strong>Jorn Hofsteenge (Application Scientist, SampleQ, Breda, The Netherlands)</p><p>Jorn is since many years a part of the applications team at SampleQ and specialized in the analysis of MOSH/MOAH. Working globally directly with customers to set up the newest technology for MOSH/MOAH analysis.</p><p><strong>Presenter: </strong>Petra Gerhards (Regional Marketing Manager GC &amp; GC-MS, EMEA, Thermo Fisher Scientific)</p><p>Her background is over 30 years of experience in the field of GC-MS, SPE and LC-MS. Joined the EMEA Regional Marketing Team in 2016. She has been involved in a lot of 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 inhouse seminars and works on customer specific solutions. Her main expertise is in the field of doping and drugs of abuse analysis.</p></blockquote></div></div></div>

Thermo Fisher Scientific: Talk to an expert about our barrier-free analysis of MOSH/MOAH

Talk to an expert about our barrier-free analysis of MOSH/MOAH

Live Q&A webinar on MOSH/MOAH analysis covering EN 16995 changes, matrix-specific cleanup, and the Maurus Biedermann GC×GC/MS approach with expert insights.

Related content

News from LabRulezGCMS Library - Week 12, 2026

Leveraging Local Libraries for Positively Parsimonious Peak Tables (James Harynuk, MDCW 2026)

Ask the Experts: Practical Answers to Today’s Biggest MOSH/MOAH Analysis Questions