Anal. Chem.

2010, 82, 4775–4785

Gas Chromatography
Frank L. Dorman*

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

Joshua J. Whiting

LECO-ARD, Saint Joseph, Michigan 49085

Jack W. Cochran

Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823

Jorge Gardea-Torresdey

Department of Chemistry, University of Texas, El Paso, El Paso, Texas 19968

Review Contents the fundamentals. A recent search of the literature had slightly
General Interest and Reviews 4775 more that 800 publications per year that have the broad subject
Texts 4775 area of “gas chromatography”. Most of these publications are
Review Articles 4775 applied separations which use GC as the separation technique,
Columns Principles and Technology 4776
so this review really focuses on the small subset that are viewed
General Information 4776
Stationary Phases 4776 by the authors as improvements in the technique or the under-
Fundamental Characterizations 4776 standing of the technique. Despite the large numbers of publica-
Portable and Microfabricated GC Technology tions in other separation techniques (HPLC, CE, etc), GC is
Development 4777
Microfabrication Developments 4777 arguably still the best separation tool that is in common use for
Comprehensive Two-Dimensional Gas Chromatography the compounds which are amenable to the technique. Possibly,
(GC × GC) 4779 the greatest expansion of this technique that attracts interest from
Scope 4779
researchers is comprehensive two-dimensional GC (GC × GC).
Reviews 4779
Instrumentation 4779 Increasing interest from the commercial field has led to additional
Data Handling 4779 instrumentation and improvements in ease of use following the
Theory 4780 previous review. While this technique is still not common in
Biological 4780
Clinical and Forensics 4780 analytical laboratories, it does account for a significant amount of
Environmental 4780 the publications and academic research; thus, it occupies a rather
Flavor and Fragrance 4781 extensive portion of this review.
Food and Beverage 4781
Texts. Several texts were published in this period, some of
Metabolomics 4782
Petrochemical 4782 which were revised editions. Of particular note are three first
Gas Chromatography Detectors 4782 edition texts: “Comprehensive Two Dimensional GC”, edited by
Improvement in GC Detector Techniques 4782 Ramos (2); “Quantification in LC and GC: A Practical Guide to
GC Detector Improvement through Software
Development 4783
Good Chromatographic Data”, edited by Kuss and Kromidas (3);
Development of GC New Detectors 4783 and “Ionic Liquids in Chemical Analysis”, edited by Koel (4). Also
Literature Cited 4784 revised during this period was McNair’s text on “Basic Gas
Chromatography” (5), which is a text that is often used in the
GENERAL INTEREST AND REVIEWS teaching of the GC technique to students. Finally, for the GC/
This review of the fundamental developments in gas chroma- MS technique, Hubschmann has revised and updated the Hand-
tography (GC) includes articles published following the previous book of GC/MS text (6).
review (1) in 2008 up to March, 2010. Emphasis is given to Review Articles. During the time period of this review,
developments which are considered significant as far as basic approximately 40 review articles were published on various aspects
advances. This accounts for a much smaller amount of publica- of GC. Many were, again, application driven, or were focused on
tions, as the majority of papers deals with applications of the GC detection strategies or increasing the instrumental throughput.
technique and, as such, do not necessarily represent advances in There were a surprising number of articles, however, that were
more focused on the GC separation itself or on expanding the
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. range of compounds which can be analyzed. Often referred to as
10.1021/ac101156h  2010 American Chemical Society Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010 4775
Published on Web 05/26/2010
the “Achilles heel” of GC, the injection technique can be a large
source of frustration when analyzing thermally labile compounds.
Large volume injection (LVI) methods have been well reviewed
(7) including direct sample introduction and through oven transfer
adsorption desorption (TOTAD) techniques.
Also considered an “injection” technique, static headspace
extraction GC (SHE-GC) was reviewed (8). Methods of extending
the working range of volatility for this technique are addressed,
and good coverage of the fundamentals is also summarized.
Fast GC was also reviewed (9) with particular attention being
paid to theory and influence of various band-broadening mecha-
nisms which can potentially limit this technique. It was demon-
strated that peak widths of 1 ms are readily achievable in GC if
extra-column band broadening is controlled.
A few reviews concerning the role and understanding of the
stationary phase in GC separations were published. The first
describes the various retention models used in prediction of
retention times based on thermodynamic parameters (10). This
also covers the use of thermodynamic modeling to various column
arrangements with simultaneous temperature and pressure pro-
gramming. Also discussed is extension of these techniques to fast
GC and GC × GC. Most of the stationary phase work published
still continues to be nonpolysiloxane materials, and a review of
molten salt and ionic liquids as stationary phases for organic
compound analysis includes a discussion as to how stationary
phases should be selected by potential users (11). A review of
the use of metal-containing stationary phases was also published
(12). These materials are useful for separation of compounds
through a complexation mechanism. Examples of chiral separa-
tions were addressed.
Finally, several reviews on the GC × GC technique were
published. The use of this technique for the analysis of complex
metabolomic samples was reviewed (13). This is a very challeng-
ing analysis in biological fluid, and the increase in peak capacity
of the GC × GC technique may lend considerable benefit to these
separations. Further, coupling the GC × GC to a time-of-flight mass
spectrometer (TOFMS) adds another dimension of separation and
can be a very powerful analytical technique. Two other general
reviews of the GC × GC technique also summarize the state of
the art of this technique and show numerous relevant applications.
The first includes an industrial perspective as to the benefit of
GC × GC in semiroutine analyses at Dow (14). The second also
includes a discussion of the prediction of separation based on
thermodynamic properties and attempts to simplify the column
selection process (15).
COLUMNS PRINCIPLES AND TECHNOLOGY
General Information. While the GC column is, of course,
the only part of the entire GC system that physically separates
compounds from each other, only a small percentage of
publications deal with the understanding of this process or the
development of new materials. While this may have been a very
active area of research years ago, it certainly is viewed as
“mature” in the present day, and as a result, most publications
that fit into the category of column advancements are very niche
in application. Professor Klaus Unger was quoted at the HPLC
2008 meeting as saying that “we should put our efforts towards
gaining selectivity, not towards the mad rush to increase
efficiency”. He was, of course, discussing the area of small-
4776 Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010
particle based HPLC separations, but his comments could easily
apply to GC as well. Most practicing chromatographers have
little interest or knowledge in the mechanisms which lead to
separation and often rely on detection techniques to overcome
chromatographic coelutions. While this may give acceptable
results in some cases, there is still need for development of
new materials which would give additional selectivities and/
or allow GC to extend further into the analysis of reactive
nonvolatile compounds.
Stationary Phases. Clearly, ionic liquids continue to represent
the highest percentage of papers published using new materials
as GC stationary phases. To date, these materials have not had
the efficiency of the polysiloxanes, but they do offer unique
selectivities. The use of ionic liquids has been reported in the
analysis of biodiesel blends (16), another recent topic of interest!
This paper uses one of the commercially available columns which
is based on the chemistry developed at Dan Armstrong’s group.
The comparison to more standard poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG)
column separations demonstrates the ionic liquid’s benefit of
separation of the FAME’s from the less-retained saturates. Other
researchers have reported on an ionic liquid bonded polysiloxane
stationary phase, which they claim has a “high separation
efficiency” of 3200 plates/m (17). Finally, the development of a
new triflate ionic liquid for GC × GC was reported (18). The
comparison to more conventional PEG phases as second-dimen-
sion columns was discussed. The ionic liquid column was stated
to have significantly larger selectivity for several of the test
compounds. Second dimension column orthogonality is a very
important issue for GC × GC separations, and ionic liquids may
have a role here, even if their efficiencies are not as high as more
routine phases.
The separation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s)
has been of increased interest. Several commercial companies
have reportedly developed columns specifically for this application.
Most notable, Agilent Technologies (www.agilent.com) and Varian
(www.varian.com) have marketed a specific column for this
separation. Restek Corporation (www.restek.com) has also re-
ported on the use of molecular modeling techniques to develop a
new material that is designed for this separation (19).
Additional work in the area of modified cyclodextrines was
still an area of research, and one paper (20) discussed the use
of a maltooctaose derivative as a stationary phase for the
separation of enantiomers. Another one (21) used a common
permethylated β-cyclodextrine diluted in a variety of liquid
phases in order to determine the role of the polymer type on
retention. This work used PEG and also SE-30 and SE-54 as
liquid phases.
Fundamental Characterizations. During this review period,
very little work was published on the modeling or characteriza-
tions of stationary phases. Typically, there have been a few papers
on thermodynamic modeling and also quantitative structure
property relationship (QSPR) approaches. There were two papers
published, both using QSPR models for retention prediction of
environmentally important compounds. In the first (22), the
retention indices of 168 pesticides were used to construct a QSPR
model. The second paper (23) used a QSPR approach to
determine four optimal descriptors which then let the authors
predict retention on 18 different GC columns for all 209 PCB

Figure 1. Number of citations by year of Terry, Jerman, and Angel’s
1979 paper describing the first etched silicon GC system.
congeners. These approaches should allow for improved column
selection and also potential identification of congeners that may
not be in a particular user’s calibration standards.
PORTABLE AND MICROFABRICATED GC
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Analytical samples are often at risk for sample contamination,
decomposition, degradation, and loss during storage and transport
from the collection site to the laboratory for analysis. This has
resulted in a growing trend toward efforts to bring the lab to the
sample when possible. Significant efforts have been invested to
develop and test portable instrumentation. There have been
several recent reports of the development and use of portable GC
systems including work done at the University of Michigan on a
portable GC with a chemiresistor array detector (24). The system
was designed for rapid, trace analysis of complex mixtures. It
consists of a small, multistage preconcentrator; two series-coupled
columns with fast, independent temperature programming capa-
bilities; pressure control at the junction point between the
columns; and an array of chemiresistors for detection. A new
commercially available portable GC with detection provided by a
toroidal ion trap mass spectrometer has been developed and
described by researchers at Brigham Young University and Torion
Technologies (www.torion.com) (25). The system consists of a
SPME injection system, a low-thermal mass GC, and a miniature
toroidal ion trap mass analyzer housed in a Pelican case. The
entire system including pumps and batteries weighs about 13 kg.
Two other application studies included the use of portable GC
systems for the analysis of acetaldehyde in tobacco smoke (26)
and the clinical measurement of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs)
which can be a cause of oral malodor (27).
Microfabrication Developments. Thirty years after the
publication of the seminal paper by Terry, Jerman, and Angell in
1979 (28), which described the first GC system composed largely
of microfabricated components, interest in separation systems
facilitated by microfabricated devices continues to grow as
micromachining capabilities mature. Evidence of this is shown
in Figure 1 which shows the number of citations of the Angell
paper as a function of publication year. The promise of this
research continues to be reduced system size, low-power require-
ments, enhanced performance, and the promise of batch manu-
facturing to reduce costs. In practice, significantly enhanced
performance continues to elude researchers, with the best
performing microfabricated columns performing on par with
comparable commercially coated fused silica columns. These
performance challenges were largely predicted by Golay in 1981
(29) when he described the end effects of high aspect ratio
columns. As novel geometries and fabrication techniques evolve,
the potential exists for greater improvement in these areas. Even
within these current limitations, interest remains high due to the
promise of reduced manufacturing costs by utilizing similar batch
manufacturing techniques now common in the semiconductor
industry for the manufacturing of microprocessors, memory, etc.
However, an important consideration, as the number of research-
ers developing new stationary phase coatings, coating techniques,
column designs, and methods of fabrication increases, is that a
standardized column evaluation method should be developed to
directly compare their performance and test column reproducibility.
The size and power benefits are both obvious and connected;
as one reduces the mass of components, the power required to
heat and cool individual components decreases as well. Several
GC systems have been designed and manufactured using micro-
fabricated components to achieve this end. Examples include the
Canary line from Defiant Technologies (www.defiant-tech.com)
which integrates microfabricated GC columns, preconcentrators,
and detectors for multiple applications; SLS micro’s GCM series
(www.slsmt.com) which integrates a microfabricated column,
detector, and sample loop along with the electronics into a PDA
sized fluidics package; and Thermo Scientific’s C2 V-200 micro
GC (www.c2v.nl) which integrates a microfabricated inlet and
detectors with conventional wall coated open tubular fused silica
columns. Two recent developments include the introduction of
an “intelligent” preconcentrator by Defiant Technologies that “on-
the-fly” determines the appropriate sampling time and the acquisi-
tion of Concept to Volume (C2 V) by Thermo Scientific. Several
researchers continue to work on the development of new systems
based on microfabricated components; one recent report describes
a new portable GC system utilizing a micro electromechanical
system (MEMS) enabled miniaturized GC for the subparts per
billion detection and monitoring of aromatic volatiles (30). Zam-
polli and others at the CNR-IMM Institute for Microelectronics
and Microsystems in Bologna, Italy, describe a system consisting
of a micromachined preconcentrator, a 50 cm × 800 µm × 1 mm
microfabricated column packed with 80-100 mesh carbograph 2
+ 0.2% carbowax particles, and metal oxide (MOX) gas sensors
as a detector. The demonstrated system shows separation of BTEX
compounds in about 10 min. Another report by Nishino and others
at Shimadzu describes the development of a prototype instrument
built around a microfabricated column 8.5-17 m in length
generating 35 000 theoretical plates with a flame ionization
detector (FID) (31). There remain several research programs
focused on the development of new MEMS GC systems including
Sandia National Laboratories and the University of Michigan
WIMS Center.
Sandia National Laboratories has had an ongoing development
program in the area of microfabricated GC systems since 1996,
primarily geared toward the rapid, portable, low-power detection
of chemical weapons, explosives, and more recently toxic indus-
trial chemicals. Recent advances include the development of mass-
sensitive microfabricated preconcentrators (32), a new selective
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010 4777
and sensitive chemiresistor GC detector (33), and the demonstra-
tion of the first consumable free comprehensive two-dimensional
GC system (GC × GC) consisting of a pair of microfabricated
columns and a microfabricated detector (34). The mass-sensitive
preconcentrator consists of a thin film resistive heater on the
surface of a MEMS pivot plate resonator (PPR). The PPR is
Lorentz force actuated, and the frequency of the resonator shifts
with mass loading. When sufficient sample has been collected for
analysis by the downstream microfabricated gas analyzer, the film
is heated and the sample is desorbed. Under partial funding from
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Micro Gas
Analyzer (DARPA-MGA) program, Sandia developed a sensitive
chemiresistor utilizing a conjugated molecule linked gold nano-
particles in a sol-gel matrix. The chemiresistor demonstrated
significant selectivity for phosphonates (CWA simulants) and
sensitivity. The GC × GC utilized a pair of microfabricated GC
columns. The first column was coated with polydimethyl siloxane
and was 90 cm in length; the second column was 30 cm in length
and was coated with polyethylene glycol. The modulator was a
stop-flow design based on the work of Richard Sacks, and
detection was provided by a nanoelectromechanical systems
(NEMS) cantilever resonator developed by the Roukes group at
Caltech. The system demonstrated a separation of ∼29 compo-
nents in less than 8 s.
The NSF funded Wireless Integrated MicroSystems (WIMS)
Engineering Research Center (ERC) (www.wimserc.org) is in the
final year of NSF funding for the center and is transitioning from
an ERC to the WIMS institute. The center has been developing
several parallel MEMS GC based systems for multiple applications,
such as breath analysis (35), explosives detection (36), extrater-
restrial exploration (37), and indoor air quality monitoring (38).
They have developed new gas phase detectors such as nanoscale
chemiresistor arrays (39) and microdischarge detectors (40). The
WIMS center has also demonstrated the first thermally modulated
GC × GC system utilizing microfabricated columns (41).
While these efforts continue, much of the research being
reported has focused on the development of microfabricated
components such as preconcentrators, columns, and detectors.
In the area of preconcentrators, several groups are exploring the
use of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) as a sorbent material. CNTs
demonstrate excellent adsorption and desorption characteristics
due to low mass transfer resistance because of the nonporous
nature of the material (42, 43). Other materials investigated for
use as sorbents in microfabricated preconcentrators include the
use of microporous activated carbon (44), chemically polymerized
polypyrrole (45), as sorbent materials, and inkjet printing of
polymer sorbents prior to anodic bonding (46).
In the area of column development, there have been several
reported advances. Zareian-Jahromi and Agah at Virginia Tech
have recently reported revisiting the concept of multicapillary
columns (MCCs) (47). MCCs are a concept first operatively
demonstrated by researchers in Novosibirsk, Russia, in the 1980′s
and exist now as a commercial product sold by Multichrom, Ltd.
(www.mcc-chrom.com). The principal concept is to get around
the column capacity limitations and pressure restrictions of
microbore columns using a bundle of identical microbore columns
in parallel. This allows a fraction of each injection to be separated
on each column preventing overloading and enables the overall
4778 Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010
flow restriction to be very small. The challenges remain in
manufacturing uniform channels, both in length and phase volume
ratio, distribution of the injection plug equally to all columns, and
dead volume at the inlet and outlet of the system. Problems in
any of these areas will result in band broadening. Agah’s group
has demonstrated some success using a MEMS approach to
address these problems. Ali and Agah have also demonstrated
MEMS based semipacked columns (48). These columns used
microfabricated posts in the column channels to decrease diffusion
distances and column capacity relative to more traditional WCOT
columns but still demonstrate significantly reduced pressure drops
relative to traditional packed columns. Zareian-Jahromi and Agah
have also reported a novel coating technique using a monolayer
protected gold stationary phase (49).
There are several other reports of novel column fabrication
development. Radadia and Masel at the University of Illinois
describe work on an all silicon column using a gold diffusion
eutectic bonding process to bond a silicon lid instead of a Pyrex
lid to the silicon channels (50) and a partially buried microcolumn
with an interesting cross section (51). Lewis and Milton describe
a microfabricated planar glass column with a circular cross section
manufactured in two hemispherical halves and bonded using
epoxy (52). Sun and Chen at the Chinese Academy of Sciences
report the development of a silicon/Pyrex microfabricated 100
µm × 100 µm × 6 m column generating 4850 theoretical plates
(53). There are also reports of new column coatings which have
also been developed.
Researchers from both the University of Washington/Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratories (54) and University of Tokyo
(55) describe the use of CNTs as stationary phases. Nakai et al.
from the University of Tokyo also reports on the use of a
functionalized parylene (56) as a stationary phase. A report by
researchers at the WIMS center at the University of Michigan
highlighted an often overlooked aspect of microfabricated col-
umns: column reproducibility. The study compared the perfor-
mance of several (2-8) columns with different preparations to
develop a column coating strategy (57).
There have been several advances in the area of microfabri-
cated and miniaturized GC detectors including mass analyzers,
ion mobility spectrometers (IMS), optical sensors, and microcan-
tilever (MC) arrays. Malcom and Finlay at Micorsaic Systems,
Ltd. and the Imperial College describe a microengineered quad-
rupole mass filter consisting of microfabricated components to
fabricate a quadrupole mass filter with dimensions of 35 mm × 6
mm × 1.5 mm (58). Researchers at the University of Cordoba
describe a system that couples a multicapillary column with a
miniaturized IMS for rapid GC × IMS separations (59). Research-
ers from the University of Missouri and ICx Nomadics have
reported on the use of a optofluidic ring resonator (OFRR) sensor
for on-column detection (60-62). The OFRR is a thin walled fused
silica capillary. The inner wall of the capillary is coated with a
thin polymer film. The circular cross-section of the capillary forms
an optical ring resonator where circulating waveguide modes are
supported by total internal reflection of light along the curved
inner and outer boundary. The evanescent field extends into the
core and is sensitive to the refractive index change induced by
the interaction between the analyte and the stationary phase. Long
and Sepaniak at the University of Tennessee report on the use of
MC arrays for gas phase sensing (63). MC arrays have similar
response mechanisms to quartz crystal microbalances and surface
acoustic wave sensors; however, they demonstrate better mass
sensitivity, smaller dimensions, and decreased fabrication costs.
COMPREHENSIVE TWO-DIMENSIONAL GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC × GC)
Scope. This GC × GC review covers literature published
mostly from 2009 until the end of April 2010, when it was compiled,
but unlike GC × GC, it is not comprehensive because of the large
number of papers found during the search. The number of papers
published in the review period was around 100, about a 10%
increase over the last review done for Analytical Chemistry across
a similar time period (64). Only select articles of the 100 or so
are covered, broken down into distinct topic lines as seen below.
Reviews. Cortes et al. reviewed the achievements in GC ×
GC across 2007 until October 2008 citing 121 contributions from
that period (65). They noted how GC × GC work has shifted from
instrumentation development to practical applications and listed
those for petroleum, polymer, pharmaceutical, flavor and fra-
grance, metabolomics, and environmental. Interestingly, they
commented that mass spectrometry (MS) is the detector of choice,
now and in the future, for GC × GC, with time-of-flight (TOF) MS
outpacing the quadrupole due to having the faster acquisition rates
to define ultra narrow peaks from GC × GC but predicted that
the use of differential flow modulation (DFM) will increase (as
an alternative to cryogenically modulated systems); DFM is not
inherently compatible with the pumping capacity of most MS
systems, with the supersonic molecular beam approach of Amirav
being an exception (66). DFM should be more appropriate for
field and process instruments that employ alternate detectors such
as flame ionization detection (FID). Although we may disagree
on predictions for DFM, we concur on one statement in their
review; “beer is a highly popular alcoholic beverage around the
world.” In conclusion, Cortes puts emphasis on the need for
improved quantification and qualitative data analysis software and
suggests that computational chemistry methods combined with
GC × GC chromatogram structure and retention data for known
compounds can yield identifications for unknown components.
Hamilton specifically reviewed the use of GC × GC to study
the atmosphere (67). GC × GC, especially with MS, is ideally
suited for this research given the complex array of natural and
manmade emissions and oxidation products present in the
atmosphere. An important observation by the author was the need
for sophisticated data handling approaches, including image
processing, to deal with the wealth of information generated using
GC × GC/MS.
Instrumentation. Research devoted specifically to modulation
hardware was relatively light during the review period, although
the group of Shellie contributed a substantial piece on designing
flexible, pulsed flow modulation systems (68). Drawbacks of flow
modulation setups, versus the cryogenic approach, include pneu-
matic complexity, multiple connecting pieces, baseline instabilities,
and lack of flexibility for changing modulation times. In particular,
inability to vary the modulation time is problematic for flow
modulated systems due to the potential for wrap-around. Shellie
developed a dynamic flow model and employed a postfirst-
dimension-column restrictor that offsets some of these disadvan-
tages, including allowing different modulation times. That benefit
can now be added to those already realized in flow modulation:
less expensive hardware and no cryogenic fluid use. Pizzutti et
al. derived a better compressed air modulator (69) from an earlier
model (70) to address developing countries’ needs for low-cost
systems. While the volatility range is limited for this air modulator,
with breakthrough shown for tetradecane, lower volatility pesti-
cides ranging from Trifluralin to Deltamethrin were successfully
analyzed in grapes with GC × GC-ECD.
Begnaud et al. modified the Marriott longitudinally modulated
cryogenic system (LMCS) to temperature program the cooling
chamber in conjunction with the GC oven, which reportedly
increases the modulation efficiency across a wide range of
compound volatilities while simultaneously reducing cryogenic
fluid use (71). The use of the LMCS as the heart of a switchable
multidimensional/GC × GC system was described and then tested
with compounds important to essential oil analysis and lavender
oil (72). A microfluidic Deans switch placed after a primary GC
column, upstream of the LMCS, allowed selection of either a
longer second column for heart-cutting work or a shorter column
for GC × GC. The system was flexible enough to allow switching
from heart-cut to GC × GC multiple times in one analytical run.
Although not demonstrated, the system is proposed to be
especially effective for heart-cut olfactory work, where broader
peaks are necessary for sensory perception.
Klee and Blumberg performed flow modulation of methane-
doped carrier gas, which allowed direct observation/calculation
of second dimension hold-up times in GC × GC (73). Subse-
quently, they calculated/visualized retention factors for alkanes
and diesel components in both columns for GC × GC. Unfortu-
nately, for cryofocusing modulator users, this approach will not
work since methane cannot be trapped with current systems. The
tendency for those users to employ stationary phase bleed from
the first column as a way to calculate hold-up time was discour-
aged upon proving that stationary phase bleed was retained
(versus methane) by the second dimension column. However, the
authors’ setup did not consider an independently temperature-
programmed secondary oven that could be positively offset versus
a primary column oven. Primary and secondary column temper-
atures were the same in their experiments.
Tobias et al. gave the first report on the coupling of GC × GC
to combustion isotope ratio MS and used their system to
demonstrate the analysis of steroids relevant to sports perfor-
mance enhancement (74). They also suggested applications for
food authentication and environmental pollutant tracing, where
sample complexity may make one-dimensional GC insufficient.
Data Handling. Given the high data density of GC × GC,
especially when TOFMS is used, the sample complexity that
predetermines GC × GC use for an application, and the special
needs of the metabolomics community in particular, it is not
surprising to discover reports on data handling outside of what is
already provided by an instrument vendor. Vial et al. used dynamic
time warping to align second dimension peaks in GC × GC
chromatograms, followed by multivariate analysis to distinguish
three types of tobacco (75). Through additional interpretation,
marker compounds for a tobacco could be identified via the
collected mass spectrometry data. An imaging process technique
borrowed from the proteomics field was used to compare fruit
aromas represented by contour plots after analysis by headspace
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010 4779
solid phase microextraction (SPME) GC × GC/MS (76). Image
profiles created by the process can be used for statistical analysis
and suggesting sample origin. While seemingly very powerful,
the authors noted that any mass spectrometry data collected
during GC × GC is “off-line” to the imaging software, a distinct
disadvantage compared to other GC × GC data processing
software. Almstetter et al. used GC × GC-TOFMS vendor software
that included automated baseline correction, peak finding, spectral
deconvolution, and library searching prior to applying retention
time normalization and data alignment to compare two strains of
Escherichia coli (77). They exported peak lists from the vendor
software and aligned peaks with a model fitted to known deriva-
tized fatty acids in the samples, followed by principal component
analysis to achieve metabolic fingerprinting.
Theory. Blumberg and Klee took a critical look at definitions
for multidimensional separations, including GC × GC, discussing
Giddings concepts and proposing a new definition that includes
only “analytical separations” (78). Seeley et al. developed a
simplified solvation parameter model to predict GC × GC com-
pound retention behavior on a variety of stationary phase
combinations using literature values for solute and stationary
phase descriptors (79). They saw excellent agreement of the
model and experimental GC × GC data and suggested the model
could be used to design optimal column setups.
Biological. Kalinová et al. investigated the male wing gland
secretions of a bumblebee parasite, the wax moth Aphomia
sociella, with SPME GC × GC-TOFMS (80). Bumblebees are
important pollinators in greenhouses and are being considered
for open agricultural field pollination given the recent decline of
the domesticated honeybee. Chemically understanding gland
secretions may allow the creation of effective lures for bumblebee
parasite control. GC × GC-TOFMS, in conjunction with GC-
electroantennographic detection (EAD) and GC-FT-IR, identified
several compounds as potential sex pheromones for the wax moth.
With perhaps the most provocative title in this review, Irresistible
Bouquet of Death, only topped by the keywords, Carcass Attractive-
ness, Kalinová et al. again used SPME with GC × GC-TOFMS and
GC-EAD, this time to study how burying beetles are attracted to
dead mice (81). GC × GC-TOFMS allowed the identification of
sulfur-containing volatile organic chemicals evolved after death
that are likely stimulants for carrion location by the beetles.
Although a very interesting read, this is one paper not to be
studied over lunch.
Clinical and Forensics. GC × GC-TOFMS was used to
analyze opiates and benzodiazepines in human serum after solid
phase extraction and derivatization (82). Excellent second dimen-
sion separations from the higher-concentration matrix interfer-
ences were achieved for the subject compounds on the 50% phenyl-
type column. A limit of quantification of approximately 5 ng/mL
was noted for Flunitrazepam in serum, significant since it is
necessary to detect therapeutic levels at <10 ng/mL. The authors
suggested that the full mass-range approach of TOFMS could
allow nontarget compound analysis. This same benefit is desirable
in sports antidoping applications for retroactive searches of data
for nontarget compounds and “designer steroids”, as voiced by
the group of Marriott (83). They thoroughly tested GC × GC-
TOFMS for anabolic agents in urine and reported limits of
detection below or at the required performance levels set by the
4780 Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010
World Anti-Doping Agency. Quantification with TOFMS can even
proceed on ions chosen after analysis since a full mass spectrum
is collected. One of the downsides of TOFMS for this application,
though, was its apparent lower sensitivity for higher m/z ions in
the anabolic agent trimethylsilyl derivatives versus other mass
analyzers, such as quadrupoles. This issue can compromise not
only sensitivity if those ions are chosen as quantification masses
but also qualitative searches via standard mass spectral libraries.
In the latter case, the authors recommend creating TOFMS
spectral libraries specific for the antidoping compounds of interest
from authentic reference materials.
In breath analysis research for clinical purposes, novel multi-
sorbent needle traps were used for sampling prior to desorption
to GC × GC-TOFMS (84). The needle traps performed relatively
well and could even be autosampled, although they were subject
to rapid contamination in some hospital environments. GC × GC-
TOFMS showed the capability to detect low levels of breath
components and the potential for identifying previously unknown
compounds. The authors correctly suggested that thicker film
columns are necessary for volatiles work (versus the 0.25 mm
×0.25 µm used in their first dimension), both to provide better
analyte focusing during needle trap desorption and to avoid
overload of higher concentration components.
Hoggard et al. exploited the separation ability of GC × GC-
TOFMS with sophisticated chemometrics to detect and identify
29 impurities in six samples of commercially obtained dimethyl-
methylphosphonate (DMMP), a chemical weapon simulant (85).
They then used statistical analysis to classify the DMMPs, finding
that two had identical impurity profiles; the chemical supplier later
confirmed them to be from the same source. On the basis of their
success, the authors will continue to develop these methods for
impurity profiling that support forensic investigations of chemical-
attack crime scenes.
Environmental. The electron capture detector (ECD) is
widely used in the analysis of environmental samples for poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toxaphene, organochlorine pesti-
cides (OCPs), chlorinated benzenes (CBs), and other halogenated
pollutants, even today, often operated with a parallel dual-GC
column configuration. In the parallel dual-column GC-ECD ap-
proach, two different stationary phases are employed to enhance
selectivity and elucidate possible quantification bias. However, for
unknown reasons to this reviewer, GC × GC-ECD, which is similar
in a “two independent separations” regard, is still a relatively little-
used technique for environmental analysis. Muscalu and others
recently demonstrated the power of GC × GC-ECD when they
analyzed PCBs, OCPs, and CBs in sludge and sediment samples
(86). A 100% dimethyl polysiloxane column was used in the
first dimension coupled to a secondary column that has
selectivity toward mono-ortho and coplanar PCBs. Only 2 of
the 64 PCBs investigated coeluted, congeners 4 and 10 (BZ#s).
Given that environmental samples are often extremely complex,
the authors investigated the potential for chlorinated dioxins
and furans, toxaphene, chlorinated diphenyl ethers, and chlo-
rinated naphthalenes to coelute with the PCBs, OCPs, and CBs
of interest. There were no interferences. Standard reference
materials of sludge and sediment analyzed with GC × GC-ECD
after pressurized fluid extraction and silica and copper treat-
ments, showed acceptable accuracy and precision. In addition,
other compounds, such as polychlorinated alkanes, were seen
in the extracts.
A hot topic in environmental analysis is pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in waters. GC × GC-TOFMS with SPE was
recently used to effect parts per trillion level determinations for
13 pharmaceuticals, 18 plasticizers, 8 personal care products, 9
acid herbicides, 8 triazines, 10 organophosphorous compounds,
5 phenylureas, 12 organochlorine biocides, 9 polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and 5 benzothiazoles and benzotriazoles
in river water (87). Although a 5% phenyl × 50% phenyl column
combination gave the best separation for the compounds of
concern, the reverse setup gave a good correlation between
second dimension retention times for compounds and their log
Kow values. This relationship was proposed as an identification
confirmation tool.
Mao et al. better estimated ecotoxicity of petroleum hydro-
carbon mixtures in soil using HPLC-GC × GC-FID, versus poorly
performing, simple one-dimensional total petroleum hydrocarbon
tests (88).
The remaining environmental GC × GC papers cited here are
applications accomplished by taking advantage of the three most
important features of GC × GC-TOFMS: chromatographic sup-
pression/elimination of matrix interferences that thwart target or
nontarget compound identification, enhanced sensitivity for trace
residue levels through modulation focusing, and having a full mass
spectrum for compound identification through interpretation or
library searching. In environmental analysis concerning petroleum
samples, structure-of-chromatogram can be added as a benefit. The
list includes analysis of: biodegraded crude oil (89); nonylphenols
in groundwater and wastewater (90); heavy oil from natural seeps
into the ocean (91); benzothiazoles, benzotriazoles, and benzosul-
fonamides in wastewater, raw sewage, and river water (92); organic
nitrogen compounds in urban aerosols (93); and organic compounds
from wood combustion aerosol nanoparticles (94).
Flavor and Fragrance. Rochat, Egger, and Chaintreau inves-
tigated shrimp aroma not only with GC × GC-TOFMS but also
with GC-olfactometry (GC-O) and multidimensional (heart-cut)
GC/MS with olfactometry (MDGC/MS/O) (95). Each system had
its strong and weak points, and ultimately the techniques were
complementary. GC × GC had superior sensitivity, which endorsed
its use for identification of trace-level odorants noted during GC-O
or MDGC/MS/O. Difficulties in retrieving matching odorant
peaks for mass spectral identification from the complex GC × GC
chromatogram were overcome to some extent by correlating the
linear retention indices from an Adams’ database to retention on
the first dimension column of the GC × GC setup. Of course, both
stationary phases must be the same for this approach to work,
and in one important case, that of attempted confirmation of the
intense odorant 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine, even the separating
power of GC × GC and spectral deconvolution did not resolve
interferences that corrupted its mass spectrum. Extracted ion plots
and “reverse search” of the coeluted mass spectrum provided
tentative identification of the pyrazine. In all, over 40 odorants
were listed for shrimp odor, although with descriptors like
“garbage, foot, rancid, dirty socks, awful, not well, etc” for some
compounds, one has to wonder if further work will be attempted!
From shrimp odor to perfumery, Pripdeevech, Wongpornchaia,
and Marriott turned in a report on the use of GC × GC with FID
and quadrupole MS, against one-dimensional GC/MS, to evaluate
simultaneous steam-distillation, supercritical fluid, microwave-
assisted, and Soxhlet extraction methods for Thai vetiver root (96).
Vetiver root oil is apparently an excellent fixative for perfumes.
Sixty-four compounds were identified using GC/MS with an
additional 43 identified (out of the many more separated) with
GC × GC/MS. Relative quantification for those compounds for
the different extraction methods was done via GC × GC-FID.
Tranchida et al. used GC × GC with a fast scanning quadrupole
MS to characterize fresh and aged tea tree essential oils, including
for potential allergenic components, some of which were found
in both fresh and aged oils (97). Although substantial differences
were noted between fresh and aged (or oxidized) oils, many of
the compounds in the oxidized oil went unidentified due to lack
of library mass spectral data.
In a study on Indian cress (also known as nasturtium) essential
oil, GC × GC-TOFMS was used in conjunction with GC-O, mainly
to identify low-level odorants that would otherwise need tedious
sample enrichment (98).
Food and Beverage. Food origin and authentication studies
are made easier by comprehensive GC approaches, since food
samples are typically very complex. Stanimirova et al. geographi-
cally defined Corsican honeys via their volatile organic chemicals
profile with headspace SPME GC × GC-TOFMS and statistical
pattern recognition techniques as an alternate to traditional pollen
examination (99). Theoretically, their approach could be used to
identify cases of intentional honey product mislabeling. Cajka et
al. used essentially the same techniques, analytical and statistical,
to divide Ligurian and other non-Ligurian Mediterranean olive oils
(100). The Ligurian oil is a premium product that is relatively
scarce. The authors remarked that while SPME GC/MS produced
sufficient marker compounds for chemometric profiling of the oils,
GC × GC-TOFMS offered a more comprehensive fingerprint and
better mass spectral qualities.
Janssen, Steenbergen, and de Koning reviewed the use of
comprehensive chromatography techniques, including GC × GC,
for the analysis of edible oils and fats, indicating that GC × GC
was well-suited for target compound analysis, group-type separa-
tion, and chromatographic fingerprinting (101). An example of
target-compound analysis was provided by Biedermann and Grob
who used GC × GC with FID and MS after HPLC separation to
determine mineral oil adulteration in sunflower soil (102).
Lojzova et al. used headspace SPME and compared GC-ion
trap MS, GC-TOFMS, and GC × GC-TOFMS for the analysis of
13 alkylpyrazines and other volatile compounds in potato chips
arising from the Maillard reaction during their production (103).
While none of the instrumental techniques allowed unequivocal
determination of all targeted alkylpyrazines, GC × GC-TOFMS was
declared superior to the other two because of lower limits of
quantification and enhanced nontarget compound screening
capability.
Beverage-related studies conducted with GC × GC included
the trace-level analysis of the potent odorants, 3-alkyl-2-methoxy-
pyrazines, in wine grapes (104) and the characterization of
Brazilian cachaca (105), a sugar cane derived liquor that surpris-
ingly is the third most consumed distilled alcoholic beverage in
the world (after vodka and soju).
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010 4781
 Because of the increase in sensitivity due to the modulation
process, GC × GC is appropriate for trace residue analysis in a
variety of food sample types. Hoh et al. demonstrated this with
quantification for a variety of halogenated compounds, including
PCBs, OCPs, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), in
fish oils, using gel permeation chromatography and a large-
volume, direct sample-introduction technique with GC × GC-
TOFMS (106). They also identified nontarget halogenated natural
products, including halogenated 1′-methyl-1,2′-bipyrroles (MBPs),
DMBPs, methoxylated PBDEs, polybrominated hexahydroxan-
thene derivatives, and polybromoindoles in the oils. Even “PCB-
free” cod liver oils had PCBs. Ratel and Engel reported a 7-fold
increase in benzenenic and halogenated volatiles detected in lamb,
milk, and oyster samples analyzed with GC × GC-TOFMS versus
GC-quadrupole MS (107).
Humston et al. contributed a piece on cacao bean quality,
proposing to identify moisture damage before visible signs of mold
on beans, using headspace SPME GC × GC-TOFMS and chemo-
metric software (108).
Metabolomics. Metabolomics samples are usually extremely
complex and will show many overlapping peaks, even when
analyzed by efficient, high resolution GC, so it is not surprising
to see GC × GC studies in the literature. In addition to full
characterization of samples and possible diagnostic value, biom-
arker discoveries for diabetes (109) and organic acidurias in
infants (110) have been facilitated by GC × GC-TOFMS. GC ×
GC-TOFMS was used as a complementary technique to liquid
chromatography-tandem quadrupole MS to examine targeted
metabolites of a bacterium Methylobacterium extorquens AM1
grown on two different carbon sources (111). Mateus et al. used
GC × GC with TOFMS to characterize volatile chemicals from 11
species of pine trees (112). In addition to more traditional GC ×
GC separations, they showed elegant enantioselective GC × GC
chromatograms for chiral terpenes that may have importance in
insect-host pine relationships. Finally, GC × GC-TOFMS allowed
terpenoid profiling of two lines of transgenic Artemisia annua L.,
an important plant in traditional Chinese medicine that contains
Artemisinin, which is used in combination therapies to treat
malaria (113).
Petrochemical. Adam et al. delivered the first report for online
supercriticial fluid chromatography (SFC) connected to twin-GC
× GC-FID and used this sophisticated system for thorough
characterization of middle distillates, including the complete
separation of saturated and unsaturated compounds (114).
Fischer-Tropsch reaction products, including paraffins, olefins,
and oxygenates, were probed using GC × GC-TOFMS by Bert-
oncini et al. (115).
Some of the GC × GC petrochemical contributions are notable
for their use of detection systems in addition to, or other than,
TOFMS. Basic and neutral nitrogen speciation and quantification
in middle distillates with GC × GC and a nitrogen-chemilumines-
cence detector was accomplished by Adam et al. (116). A rare
use of GC × GC with positive chemical ionization and quadrupole
MS, for lower molecular weight fatty alcohol alkoxylate analysis,
yielded much more information than could be obtained by electron
ionization MS alone (117).
Historically, the volatility range of GC × GC for petroleum
applications has been rather limited due to modulator temper-
4782 Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010
ature and flow limitations, GC column stationary phase tem-
perature limits (more polar phases), and even the press-fit
connectors sometimes used to seal GC × GC columns together.
However, Dutriez et al. overcame these hindrances to offer a
high-temperature GC × GC analysis of vacuum gas oils up to
nC60 (118). They used a short, wide bore, thin-film (10 m ×
0.32 mm ×0.10 µm), high-temperature dimethyl polysiloxane
column in the first dimension and a high-temperature stable
50% silphenylene polysilphenylene-siloxane column (0.5 m ×
0.10 mm ×0.10 µm) in the second dimension. Unfortunately,
there is no mention of the type of connector they used to join
these columns, an important consideration given that their GC
oven temperature program goes to 370 °C, a temperature where
a press-fit connection rarely survives for any length of time.
Interestingly, their modulation period was 20 s, perhaps a
record for the longest second dimension separation in GC ×
GC, but they determined it was necessary for elution of tetra-
aromatics within the modulation cycle (penta- and hepta-
aromatics wrapped around). Benefits of the approach were
obtaining boiling point distribution (HT-SimDist) and aromatic
family quantification for petroleum fractions.
Kohl et al. characterized military fog oil, an exceedingly
complex middle distillate petroleum product used as an ob-
scurant in soldier field training, with several GC × GC column
setups on FID and TOFMS (119). Mass spectra and the
structure of the GC × GC chromatogram, combined with data
mining at the edges of the unresolved complex mixture, allowed
the authors to propose a composition for the fog oil. It contains
mainly aliphatic compounds ranging from C10 to C30, where
naphthenes are the major fraction. Aromatics are high in
diversity but low in overall concentration, being purposely
removed in the “newer” oils to reduce toxicity. More specifi-
cally, alkanes, cyclohexanes, hexahydroindanes, decalins, ada-
mantanes, bicyclohexanes, alkylbenzenes, indanes, tetrahy-
dronaphthalenes, partially hydrogenated polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, biphenyls, dibenzofurans, and dibenzothiophenes
were identified using GC × GC-TOFMS.
GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY DETECTORS
In the biennium 2008 to 2009, many research articles and a
worth reading review describing the advances in gas chromatog-
raphy were available to the scientific community. The review,
updated to 2009 (120), describes multiple applications of GC and
the properties of detectors. This review states that, during this
period, the most common GC detector for environmental applica-
tion was the ion trap-mass spectrometric (ITMS) detector (GC-
ITMS). This GC system demonstrated its capabilities for trace
level determination of contaminants in diverse environmental
samples. Nanogram per liter concentrations of polybromine
compounds in earthworms and triclosan in rivers and coastal water
samples were detected using GC-ITMS.
Improvement in GC Detector Techniques. During this
period, different GC available techniques were modified to fit
specific requirements. For instance, two-dimensional gas chro-
matography (GC × GC) was coupled to online combustion isotope
ratio mass spectrometry (C-IRMS) to enhance peak capacity and
signal in the GC × GC system without interference with high-
precision carbon isotope analysis in urinary steroid samples (121).
Siegler et al. (122) increased the selectivity in a comprehensive
three-dimensional gas chromatography-flame ionization detector
(GC-FID) by utilizing an ionic liquid stationary phase column in
one dimension. With this modification, the authors reported the
resolution of 180 peaks per minute in a 3D diesel sample
separation.
The presence of arsine and phosphine in light hydrocarbons at
the part-per-billion level was determined by capillary flow technique
and gas chromatography with a dielectric barrier discharge detector
(GC-DBDD) (123). The method includes a large volume injection,
capillary flow technology, and the DBDD operating in argon mode.
The researchers reported that the system needed 4 min for complete
analysis and remained reliable for 6 months in continuous operation.
In addition, the development of microscale-preparative multidimen-
sional gas chromatography coupled to 2-dimensional nuclear mag-
netic resonance (MDGC-2D NMR) was proposed to isolate and
identify pure volatile compounds from a complex sample (124). The
system was used to isolate geraniol from an essential oil matrix and
quantitatively resolved from 15 partially coeluting compounds from
the first column.
A new generation of electron capture detection (nonradioac-
tive) with a short, nonpolar and wide-bore column was developed
for the analysis of isosorbide dinitrate in human serum (125). The
method was linear between 5 and 50 ng/mL with accuracy of 90%
and recovery of 99-108%. Another innovation was the combination
of electron ionization mass spectrometry and inductively coupled
plasma mass spectrometry (GC-EI-MS/ICPMS) for determining
volatile arsenic compounds formed by fecal microorganisms (126).
The element sensitivity of the ICPMS and molecular identification
by EI-MS allowed for the first time the identification of three
arsenic species (methyl-methylthio-ethylthio-arsine (MeAs(S-
Me)(SEt)), dimethyl-methylseleno-arsine (Me2AsSeMe), and thio-
bis(dimethylarsine) (Me2As)2S) in environmental samples or
human matrixes.
To overcome some of the disadvantages of current flame
photometric detectors for the determination of sulfur and phos-
phorus in hydrocarbons, a multiple flame photometric detector
(mFPD) was developed (GC-mFPD) (127). The researchers tested
five flames on quenching resistance hydrocarbons and found an
improvement of nearly 20-fold relative to a single flame mode and
almost 10-fold relative to a dual flame mode. The minimum
detectable limits for the mFPD were 4 × 10-11 g S/s and 3 × 10-12
g P/s, for sulfur and phosphorus, respectively. In addition, the
system maintained about 60% of its original analyte chemilumi-
nescence even under the presence of 100 mL/min of methane
flow into the detector, which demonstrate the robustness of the
system for quenching resistant hydrocarbons.
Silva and co-workers (128) developed a methodology for the
analysis of some alcohols as an alternative to the NIOSH
recommended method (Method 1405) for organic vapors detec-
tion. The methodology combines gas chromatography separation
with a detector made of an optical fiber sensitized with a thin
polymeric film of poly[methyl(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)siloxane] (PMT-
FPS). With the GC-OF operating in the visible region (650 nm),
nine different alcohols (allyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol, secbutyl
alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, n-butyl alcohol, isoamyl alcohol, methyl
isobutyl carbinol, cyclohexanol, and diacetone alcohol) were
separated. Results were satisfactory compared to the results
obtained using a GC-FID system.
GC Detector Improvement through Software Develop-
ment. Another approach consisted in the development of a radial
basis functional neural network (RBFNN) to model the nonlinear
calibration curves of four hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) isomers
obtained with gas chromatography-electron capture detector (GC-
ECD) (129). The RBFNN method with logarithm-transform and
normalization on the calibration data modeled the nonlinear
calibration curves for the four HCH isomers.
A new algorithm was developed for detecting fragmentation
patterns in complex samples such as plant tissues and a new
scheme to examine GC/MS spectra (130). The technique uses a
metabolite database called KNApSAcK and currently includes
49 165 species-metabolite relations from 24 847 metabolites.
Development of GC New Detectors. In addition to modifica-
tion of current methodologies/equipment, new detectors were
developed during this period. Li and co-workers (131) developed
a miniaturized atmospheric pressure dielectric barrier discharge
(DBD) to be used as GC detector for the analysis of volatile
chlorinated hydrocarbons (VCHCs). The methodology uses
chemiluminescence emission from the reaction of DBD-split
VCHCs with luminal solution. This detector is of simple construc-
tion and an energy saver, with sensitivity at subnanomole
concentrations. Another novelty during this biennium was the use
of carbon nanotubes as GC detectors (132). The methodology is
based on the gas sensing capability of carbon nanotubes, particu-
larly in field-effect transistors. A carbon nanotube field-effect
transistor was coupled to a gas chromatographer (GC-NTFET)
for the separation of BTEX compounds. The system showed good
response for 4 weeks with a detection limit lower than 4 µg/L.
Results from the GC- NTFET were comparable to results obtained
with a GC-FID system.
Frank L. Dorman is an Associate Professor of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology in the Forensics Science Program at Penn State
University. Frank’s research has been in the area of the development of
new capillary column stationary phases through the use of computer
modeling and development of applications for the analysis of environ-
mental and forensic compounds of interest using various GC × GC, GC,
and HPLC techniques. Previously, he was the Director of Technical
Development at Restek Corporation in Bellefonte, PA. He received his
Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry from the University of Vermont in
Burlington, VT. Prior to joining Restek, Frank was employed by Inchcape
Testing Services-Environmental Laboratories in several roles, eventually
becoming Senior Chemist for methods development. Frank also holds the
position of Research Professor at Juniata College in Huntingdon, PA.
Joshua J. Whiting is a Research Analytical Chemist and head of the
ARD at LECO, Corp. in St. Joseph, MI. Prior to that, he was a Senior
Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories in the
Micro Total Analytical Systems Department. He received his M.S. in
chemistry from Wright State University in 2000, and his Ph.D. in
analytical chemistry from the University of Michigan in 2004 working
for Professor Richard Sacks. His research interests include development
of portable, low-power, GC systems for rapid detection and identification
of analytes of interest utilizing MEMS components.
Jack W. Cochran is the Director of New Business and Technology for
Restek Corporation after working for LECO Corporation as their Director
for Separation Science for 7 years with their GC- and GC × GC-time-
of-flight mass spectrometers. Formerly, he worked at the Illinois Hazardous
Waste Research and Information Center and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in Oklahoma doing analytical method development for
environmentally significant compounds in air, water, sediment, tissue,
soil, and other types of samples. His analytical interests include novel
sample preparation and cleanup methods such as QuEChERS and
dispersive solid phase extraction, GC × GC with new capillary column
stationary phases, time-of-flight mass spectrometry, and vacuum-outlet GC.
Jorge Gardea-Torresdey is the Richard M. and Frances M. Dudley
Professor of Chemistry in the Department of Chemistry at The University
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010 4783
of Texas at El Paso in El Paso, TX. He received his Ph.D. in 1988 at
New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, NM. His research interests
include environmental chemistry of hazardous heavy metals and organic
compounds, gas chromatography, gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy,
atomic absorption and emission spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma/
mass spectroscopy, X-ray absorption spectroscopy, and investigation of
metal binding to biological systems for remediation of contaminated waters
and soils (e.g., phytoremediation) and the study of the fate of nanoparticles
in the environment. The scientific contributions of Dr. Gardea have
allowed him to receive many honors throughout his professional life. He
just received the 2009 SACNAS Distinguished Scientist of the Year Award.
In 2009, Dr. Gardea was highlighted by prestigious journals including
the December 3, 2009 Issue of Nature. He has authored or coauthored
over 300 research articles and book chapters. He has taught analytical
chemistry and instrumental analysis at the undergraduate level and
advanced analytical chemistry and environmental chemistry at the
graduate level. He is also currently Editor of the Journal of Hazardous
Materials.
LITERATURE CITED
(1) Dorman, F.; Overton, E.; Whiting, J.; Cochran, J. W.; Gardea-Torresdey,
J. Anal. Chem. 2008, 80, 4487–4497.
(2) Ramos, L., Ed. Comprehensive Two Dimensional Gas Chromatography;
Elsevier: New York, 2009.
(3) Kuss, H. J., Kromidas, S., Eds. Quantification in LC and GC: A Practical
Guide to Good Chromatographic Data; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2009.
(4) Koel, M., Ed. Ionic Liquids in Chemical Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, 2009.
(5) McNair, H.; Miller, J. M. Basic Gas Chromatography; John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, 2009.
(6) Hubschmann, H. J. Ed. Handbook of GC/MS: Frndamentals and Applica-
tions, Wiley-VCH: New York, 2009.
(7) Hoh, E.; Mastovska, K. J. Chromatogr., A 2008, 1186, 2–15.
(8) Snow, N. H.; Bullock, G. P. J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217, 2726–2735.
(9) Reid, V. R.; Synovec, R. E. Talanta 2008, 76, 703–717.
(10) Castello, G.; Moretti, P.; Vezzani, S. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 1607–
1623.
(11) Yao, C.; Anderson, J. L. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 1658–1712.
(12) Rykowska, I.; Wasiak, W. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 1713–1722.
(13) Pasikanti, K. K.; Ho, P. C.; Chan, E. C. Y. J. Chromatogr., B 2008, 871,
202–211.
(14) Cortes, H. J.; Winniford, B.; Luong, J.; Pursch, M. J. Sep. Sci. 2009, 32,
883–904.
(15) Ryan, D.; Marriott, P. Adv. Chromatogr. 2008, 46, 451–467.
(16) Ragonese, C.; Tranchida, P. Q.; Sciarrone, D.; Mondello, L. J. Chromatogr.,
A 2009, 1216, 8992–8997.
(17) Sun, X. J.; Zhang, S. W.; Wang, F.; Zheng, J. J.; Wu, C. Y.; Xing, J. Chem.
J. Chin. Univ. 2009, 30, 1326–1328.
(18) Reid, V. R.; Crank, J. A.; Armstrong, D. W.; Synovec, R. E. J. Sep. Sci.
2008, 31, 3429–3436.
(19) Dorman, F. L.; Schettler, P. D.; Wittrig, M.; Lautamo, R.; Cochran, J. W.;
Thomas, J.; Smith, A.; Gardner, S.; Bloom, A.; Federle, S. ISCC&E
Symposium, May 2009, Portland, OR.
(20) Sicoli, G.; Tomoyuki, I.; Jicsinszky, L.; Schurig, V. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2008,
25, 4241–4244.
(21) Grisales, J. O.; Lebed, P. J.; Keunchkarian, S.; Gonzalez, F. R.; Castells,
C. B. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 6844–6851.
(22) Jalali-Heravi, M.; Ebrahimi-Najafabadi, H.; Khodabandehloo, A. QSAR
Comb. Sci. 2009, 28, 1432–1441.
(23) Ghavami, R.; Sadeghi, F. Chromatographia 2009, 70, 851–868.
(24) Zhong, Q.; Steinecker, W. H.; Zellers, E. T. Analyst 2009, 134, 283.
(25) Contreras, J. A.; Murray, J. A.; Tolley, S. E.; Oliphant, J. L.; Tolley, H. D.;
Lammert, S. A.; Lee, E. D.; Later, D. W.; Lee, M. L. J. Am. Soc. Mass
Spectrom. 2008, 19, 1425.
(26) Lin, H.; Ye, Q.; Deng, C.; Zhang, X. J. Chromatogr., A 2008, 1198, 34.
(27) Vandekerckhove, B.; Vanden Velde, S.; De Smit, M.; Dadamio, J.;
Teughels, W.; Van Tornout, M.; Quiryen, M. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009,
36, 964.
(28) Terry, S. C.; Jerman, J. H.; Angell, J. B. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 1979,
26, 1880.
(29) Golay, M. J. E. J. Chromatogr., A , 216, 1.
(30) Zampolli, S.; Elmi, I.; Mancarella, F.; Betti, P.; Dalcanale, E.; Cardinali,
G. C.; Severi, M. Sens. Actuators, B 2009, 141, 322.
(31) Nishino, M.; Takemori, Y.; Matsuoka, S.; Kanai, M.; Nishimoto, T.; Ueda,
M.; Komori, K. IEEE Trans. 2009, 4, 358.
(32) Manginell, R. P.; Hadizadeh, R.; Porter, D. A.; Hietala, V. M.; Bryan, J. R.;
Wheeler, D. R.; Pfeifer, K. B.; Rumpf, A. J. MEMS 2008, 17, 1396.
4784 Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010
(33) Dirk, S. M.; Howell, S. W.; Price, B. K.; Fan, H.; Washburn, C.; Wheeler,
D. R.; Tour, J. M.; Whiting, J.; Simonson, R. J. J. Nanomater. 2009, 481270
(Article ID).
(34) Whiting, J. J.; Fix, C. S.; Anderson, J. M.; Staton, A. W.; Manginell, R. P.;
Wheeler, R. D.; Myers, E. B.; Roukes, M. L.; Simonson, R. J. High-Speed
Two-Dimensional Gas Chromatography Using Microfabricated Gc Col-
umns Combined With Nanoelectromechanical Mass Sensors. Proceedings
of IEEE Transducers, Denver, CO, June 2009, p. 1666.
(35) Kim, S. K.; Chang, H.; Zellers, E. T. Prototype Micro Gas Chromatograph
for Breath Biomarkers of Respiratory Disease. IEEE International Confer-
ence on Solid-State Sensors and Actuators (Transducers), Denver, CO, June
2009, pp 128-131.
(36) Serrano, G.; Chang, H.; Zellers, E. T. A Micro Gas Chromatograph for
High-Speed Determinations of Explosive Vapors. IEEE International
Conference on Solid-State Sensors and Actuators (Transducers), Denver,
CO, June2009, pp 1654-1657.
(37) WIMS ERC Annual Report, 43, 2009.
(38) Zhong, Q.; Steinecker, W. H.; Zellers, E. T. Analyst 2009, 134, 283.
(39) Bohrer, F. I.; Covington, E.; Kurdak, C.; Zellers, E. T. Nanoscale
Chemiresistor Arrays with Patterned Nanoparticle Interface Layers for
Micro Gas Chromatography. Transducers 2009, Denver, CO, June 2009,
pp 148-151.
(40) Mitra, B.; Gianchandani, Y. B. IEEE Sens. J. 2008, 8, 1445.
(41) Serrano, G.; Reidy, S. M.; Wise, K. D.; Zellers, E. T. DRIE-SI Gas
Chromatography Columns: Efficiency and Thermal Stability of Stationary
Phases for Comprehensive Two-Dimensional (GC × GC) Separations, Solid
State Sensor, Actuator and Microsystems Workshop (Hilton Head), Hilton
Head Island, SC, June 2008, pp 260-263.
(42) Hussain, C. M.; Saridara, C.; Mitra, S. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1185, 161.
(43) Hussain, C. M.; Saridara, C.; Mitra, S. Analyst 2008, 133, 1076.
(44) Blanco, F.; Vilanova, X.; Fierro, V.; Celzard, A.; Ivanov, P.; Llobet, E.;
Canellas, N.; Ramirez, J. L.; Correig, X. Sens. Actuators, B 2008, 132, 90.
(45) Strand, N.; Bhushan, A.; Schivo, M.; Kenyon, N. J.; Davis, C. E. Sens.
Actuators, B 2010, 143, 516.
(46) Alfeeli, B.; Cho, D.; Khorassani, M. A.; Taylor, L. T.; Agah, M. Sens.
Actuators, B 2008, 133, 24.
(47) Zareian-Jahromi, M. A.; Ashraf-Khorassani, M.; Taylor, L. T.; Agah, M. J.
MEMS 2009, 18, 28.
(48) Ali, S.; Ashraf-Khrassani, M.; Taylor, L.; Agah, M. Sens. Actuators, B 2009,
141, 309.
(49) Zareian-Jahromi, M.; Agah, M. J. MEMS 2009, 19, 294.
(50) Radadia, A. D.; Salchi-Khojin, A.; Masel, R. I.; Shannon, M. A. J. Micromech.
Microeng. 2010, 20, 015002(article).
(51) Radadia, A. D.; Morgan, R. D.; Masel, R. I.; Shannon, M. A. Anal. Chem.
2009, 81, 3471.
(52) Lewis, A. C.; Hamilton, J. F.; Rhodes, C. N.; Halliday, J.; Bartle, K. D.;
Homewood, P.; Grenfell, R. J. P.; Goody, B.; Harling, A. M.; Brewer, P.;
Vargha, G.; Milton, M. J. T. J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217, 768.
(53) Sun, J.; Cui, D.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L.; Chen, J.; Li, H.; Chen, X. Sens. Actuators,
B 2009, 141, 431.
(54) Reid, V. R.; Stadermann, M.; Bakajin, O.; Synovec, R. E. Talanta 2009,
77, 1420.
(55) Nakai, T.; Okawa, J.; Takada, S.; Shuzo, M.; Shiomi, J.; Delaunay, J. J.;
Maruyama, S.; Yamada, I. Olfaction and Electronic Nose: Proceedings of
the 13th International Symposium, Brescia, Italy, 2009, pp 15-17.
(56) Nakai, T.; Nishiyama, S.; Shuzo, M.; Shiomi, J.; Delaunay, J. J.; Yamada,
I. J. Micromech. Microeng. 2009, 19, 065032(article).
(57) Serrano, G.; Reidy, S. M.; Zellers, E. T. Sens. Actuators, B 2009, 141,
217.
(58) Malcom, A.; Wright, S.; Syms, R. R. A.; Dash, N.; Schwab, M. A.; Finlay,
A. Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 1751.
(59) Aguilera-Herrador, E.; Cardenas, S.; Ruzsanyi, V.; Sielemann, S.; Valcarcel,
M. J. Chromatogr., A 2008, 1214, 143.
(60) Shopova, S. I.; White, I. M.; Sun, Y.; Zhu, H.; Fan, X.; Frye-Mason, G.;
Thompson, A.; Ja, S. Anal. Chem. 2008, 80, 2232.
(61) Sun, Y.; Liu, J.; Frye-Mason, G.; Ja, S.; Thompson, A.; Fan, X. Analyst 2009,
134, 1386.
(62) Sun, Y.; Liu, J.; Howard, D. J.; Frye-Mason, G.; Thompson, A.; Ja, S.; Fan,
X. Analyst 2010, 135, 165.
(63) Long, Z.; Storey, J.; Lewis, S.; Sepaniak, M. J. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81,
2575.
(64) Dorman, F. L.; Overton, E. B.; Whiting, J. J.; Cochran, J. W.; Gardea-
Torresdey, J. Anal. Chem. 2008, 80, 4487–4497.
(65) Cortes, H. J.; Winniford, B.; Luong, J.; Pursch, M. J. Sep. Sci. 2009, 32,
883–904.
(66) Amirav, A.; Gordin, A.; Poliak, M.; Fialkov, A. B. J. Mass Spectrom. 2008,
43, 141–163.
(67) Hamilton, J. F. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2010, 48, 274–282.
(68) Harvey, P. McA.; Robert, A.; Shellie, R. A.; Haddad, P. R. J. Chromatogr.
Sci. 2010, 48, 245–250.
(69) Pizzutti, I. R.; Vreuls, R. J. J.; de Kok, A.; Roehrsd, R.; Martel, S.; Friggi,
C. A.; Zanella, R. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 3305–3311.
(70) Eric Jover, E.; Adahchour, M.; Bayona, J. M.; Vreuls, R. J. J.; Brinkman,
U. A. Th. J. Chromatogr., A 2005, 1086, 2–11.
(71) Begnaud, F.; Debonneville, C.; Probst, J.-P.; Chaintreau, A.; Morrison, P. D.;
Adcock, J. L.; Marriott, P. J. J. Sep. Sci. 2009, 32, 3144–3151.
(72) Maikhunthod, B.; Morrison, P. D.; Small, D. M.; Marriott, P. J. J. Chro-
matogr., A 2010, 1217, 1522–1529.
(73) Klee, M. S.; Blumberg, L. M. J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217, 1830–1837.
(74) Tobias, H. J.; Sacks, G. L.; Zhang, Y.; Brenna, J. T. Anal. Chem. 2008,
80, 8613–8621.
(75) Vial, J.; Nocairi, H.; Sassiat, P.; Mallipatu, S.; Cognon, G.; Thiébaut, D.;
Teillet, B.; Rutledge, D. N. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 2866–2872.
(76) Schmarr, H.-G.; Bernhardt, J. J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217, 565–574.
(77) Almstetter, M. F.; Appel, I. J.; Gruber, M. A.; Lottaz, C.; Timischl, B.; Spang,
R.; Dettmer, K.; Oefner, P. J. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 5731–5739.
(78) Blumberg, L.; Klee, M. S. J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217, 99–103.
(79) Seeley, J. V.; Elise, M.; Libby, E. M.; Hill Edwards, K. A.; Seeley, S. K.
J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 1650–1657.
(80) Kalinová, B.; Kindl, J.; Jiroš, P.; Žáček, P.; Vašı́čková, S.; Buděšı́nský, M.;
Valterová, I. J. Nat. Prod. 2009, 72, 8–13.
(81) Kalinová, B.; Podskalská, H.; Růžička, J.; Hoskovec, M. Naturwissenschaften
2009, 96, 889–899.
(82) Guthery, B.; Bassindale, A.; Pillinger, C. T.; Morgan, G. H. Rapid Commun.
Mass Spectrom. 2009, 23, 340–348.
(83) Mitrevski, B. S.; Wilairat, P.; Marriott, P. J. J.Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217,
127–135.
(84) Mieth, M.; Schubert, J. K.; Gröger, T.; Sabel, B.; Kischkel, S.; Fuchs, P.;
Hein, D.; Zimmermann, R.; Miekisch, W. Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 2541–
2551.
(85) Hoggard, J. C.; Wahl, J. H.; Synovec, R. E.; Mong, G. M.; Fraga, C. G.
Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 689–698.
(86) Muscalua, A. M.; Reiner, E. J.; Liss, S. N.; Chen, T. Int. J. Environ. Anal.
Chem. 2010, 90, 1–13.
(87) Matamoros, V.; Eric Jover, E.; Bayona, J. M. Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 699–
706.
(88) Mao, D.; Lookman, R.; Van De Weghe, H.; Weltens, R.; Vanermen, G.;
De Brucker, N.; Diels, L. Chemosphere 2009, 77, 1508–1513.
(89) Melbye, A. G.; Brakstad, O. G.; Hostad, J. N.; Gregersen, I. K.; Hansen,
B. H.; Booth, A. M.; Rowland, S. J.; Tollefsen, K. E. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
2009, 28, 1815–1824.
(90) Eganhouse, R. P.; Pontillo, J.; Gaines, R. B.; Frysinger, G. S.; Gabriel,
F. L. P.; Kohler, H.-P. E.; Giger, W.; Barber, L. B. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2009, 43, 9306–9313.
(91) Farwell, C.; Reddy, C. M.; Peacock, E.; Nelson, R. K.; Washburn, L.;
Valentine, D. L. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 3542–3548.
(92) Jover, E.; Matamoros, V.; Bayona, J. M. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216,
4013–4019.
(93) Özel, M. Z.; Ward, M. W.; Hamilton, J. F.; Alastair Lewis, A. C.; Raventós-
Duran, T.; Harrison, R. M. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 109–116.
(94) Laitinena, T.; Martı́n, S. H.; Parshintseva, J.; Hyötyläinena, T.; Hartonena,
K.; Riekkolaa, M.-L.; Kulmalac, M.; Pavón, J. L. P. J. Chromatogr., A 2010,
1217, 151–159.
(95) Rochat, S.; Egger, J.; Chaintreau, A. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 6424–
6432.
(96) Pripdeevech, P.; Wongpornchai, S.; Marriott, P. J. Phytochem. Anal. 2010,
21, 163–173.
(97) Tranchida, P. Q.; Shellie, R. A.; Purcaro, G.; Conte, L. S.; Dugo, P.; Dugo,
G.; Mondello, L. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2010, 48, 262–266.
(98) Breme, K.; Tournayre, P.; Fernandez, X.; Meierhenrich, U. J.; Brevard,
H.; Joulain, D.; Berdague, J. L. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 473–480.
(99) Stanimirova, I.; Üstün, B.; Cajka, T.; Riddelova, K.; Hajslova, J.; Buydens,
L. M. C.; Walczak, B. Food Chem. 2010, 118, 171–176.
(100) Cajka, T.; Riddellova, K.; Klimankova, E.; Cerna, M.; Pudil, F.; Hajslova,
J. Food Chem. 2010, 121, 282–289.
(101) Janssen, H.-G.; Steenbergen, H.; de Koning, S. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol.
2009, 111, 1171–1184.
(102) Biedermann, M.; Grob, K. J. Sep. Sci. 2009, 32, 3726–3737.
(103) Lojzova, L.; Riddellova, K.; Hajslova, J.; Zrostlikova, Z.; Schurek, J.; Cajka,
T. Anal. Chim. Acta 2009, 641, 101–109.
(104) Ryona, I.; Pan, B. S.; Sacks, G. L. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 8250–
8257.
(105) de Souza, P. P.; de L. Cardeal, Z.; Augusti, R.; Morrison, P.; Marriott, P. J.
J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 2881–2890.
(106) Hoh, E.; Lehotay, S. J.; Pangallo, K. C.; Mastovska, K.; Ngo, H. L.; Reddy,
C. M.; Vetter, W. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 2653–2660.
(107) Ratel, J.; Engel, E. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 7889–7898.
(108) Humston, E. M.; Knowles, J. D.; McShea, A.; Synovec, R. E. J. Chromatogr.,
A 2010, 1217, 1963–1970.
(109) Li, X.; Xub, Z.; Lu, X.; Yang, X.; Yin, P.; Kong, H.; Yu, Y.; Xu, G. Anal.
Chim. Acta 2009, 633, 257–262.
(110) Kouremenosa, K. A.; Pitt, J.; Marriott, P. J. J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217,
104–111.
(111) Yang, S.; Sadilek, M.; Synovec, R. E.; Lidstrom, M. E. J. Chromatogr., A
2009, 1216, 3280–3289.
(112) Mateusa, E.; Baratab, R. C.; Zrostlı́ková, J.; Gomes da Silva, M. D. R.; Paiva,
M. R. J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217, 1845–1855.
(113) Chenfei Ma, C.; Wang, H.; Lu, X.; Wang, H.; Xu, G.; Liu, B. Metabolomics
2009, 5, 497–506.
(114) Adam, F.; Thiébaut, D.; Bertoncini, F.; Courtiade, M.; Hennion, M.-C.
J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217, 1386–1394.
(115) Bertoncini, F.; Marion, M. C.; Brodusch, N.; Esnault, S. Oil Gas Sci.Technol.
2009, 64, 79–90.
(116) Adam, F.; Bertoncini, F.; Dartiguelongue, C.; Marchand, K.; Thiébaut, D.;
Hennion, M.-C. Fuel 2009, 88, 938–946.
(117) Dück, R.; Wulf, V.; Geiβler, M.; Baier, H.-U.; Wirtz, M.; Kling, H.-W.; Gäb,
S.; Schmitz, O. J. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 396, 2273–2283.
(118) Dutriez, T.; Courtiade, M.; Thiébautb, D.; Dulot, H.; Bertoncinia, F.; Vial,
J.; Hennion, M.-C. J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 2905–2912.
(119) Kohl, A.; Cochran, J.; Cropek, D. M. J. Chromatogr., A 2010, 1217, 550–
557.
(120) Rubio, S.; Perez-Bendito, D. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 4601–4622.
(121) Tobias, H. J.; Sacks, G. L.; Zhang, Y.; Brenna, J. T. Anal. Chem. 2008,
80, 8613–8621.
(122) Siegler, W. C.; Crank, J. A.; Armstrong, D. W.; Synovec, R. E. J. Chro-
matogr., A 2010, 1279, 3144–3149.
(123) Gras, R.; Luong, J.; Hawryluk, M.; Monagle, M. J. Chromatogr., A 2010,
1217, 348–352.
(124) Eyres, G. T.; Urban, S.; Morrison, P. D.; Dufor, J. P.; Marriot, P. J. Anal.
Chem. 2008, 80, 62-93–6299.
(125) Mahmoudian, M.; Falahatpishe, H.; Gholamine, B.; Tayebi, L. Iran.
J. Pharm. Res. 2009, 8, 251–255.
(126) Diaz-Bone, R. A.; Hollmann, M.; Wuerfel, O.; Pieper, D. J. Anal. At.
Spectrom. 2009, 24, 808–814.
(127) Hayward, T. C.; Thurbide, K. B. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 8858–8867.
(128) Silva, L. I. B.; Rocha-Santos, T. A. P.; Duarte, A. C. Talanta 2008, 76,
395–399.
(129) Chen, Y.; He, J.; Zhang, J.; Yu, Z. Talanta 2009, 79, 916–925.
(130) Oishi, T.; Tanaka, K.-I.; Hashimoto, T.; Shinbo, Y.; Jumtee, K.; Bamba, T.;
Fukusaki, E.; Suzuki, H.; Shibata, D.; Takahashi, H.; et al. Plant Biotechnol.
(Japan) 2009, 26, 167–174.
(131) Li, Y.; Hu, J.; Tang, L.; He, Y.; Wu, X.; Hou, X.; Lv, Y. J. Chromatogr., A
2008, 1192, 194–197.
(132) Silva, L. I. B.; Ferreira, F. D. P.; Rocha-Santos, T. A. P.; Duarte, A. C.
J. Chromatogr., A 2009, 1216, 6517–6521.
AC101156H
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 82, No. 12, June 15, 2010 4785