Focus Groups
Focus groups were held on Monday Jan 21 and Tues Jan 22. Below is the list of topics were covered and the powerpoint summary (uploaded when received) that was presented at the conclusion of the workshop.
- FG1: Inter-laboratory data processing and software bottlenecks (Moderators: Dr. James Harynuk, Dr. Flavio Franchina)
- If you are interested in being part of the "GCxGC Data Challenge" for this workshop, click here to register and see details of the challenge in the section below.
- FG2: Widespread industry acceptance - what is holding us back? (Moderators: Dr. Jean-Marie Dimandja, Dr. Catherine Brasseur)
- FG3: Publishing GCxGC data: What are we doing well and what can we improve? (Moderators: Dr. Jef Focant, Dr. Giorgia Purcaro)
- FG4: Mass spectrometry: a powerful third dimension (Moderators: Dr. Peter Tranchida, Dr. Benedikt Weggler)
FG1: GCxGC Data Challenge
Come join us for the inaugural GC×GC Data Challenge!
This coming January, at the 10th Multidimensional Chromatography Workshop we will be running a discussion on processing GC×GC Data. The goal of the discussion is to have a group of people work at processing the same data files to generate the best possible peak tables, spectra, etc. with the most “real” peaks and the least number of “garbage” peaks.
If you would like to participate, please visit click here to register. Once registered, you will be provided with a link to detailed instructions and folders where you can find the data files.
How does this thing work?
What we hope is that people will work up the data as best they can ahead of time and record the story of their data interpretation adventures. Then bring the story to the discussion. What did you do? What tricks did you use to generate a good peak table? What tricks did you use to avoid bad peaks? How would you provide qualitative results to a client? How long did it take you (or your student) to work up a file? What were some of the challenges?
What are the rules?
- You must use a publicly available (as of November 1, 2018) commercial release of GC×GC software to process the data. (ChromaTOF, GC Image, ChromSpace, ChromSquare, etc..).
- You must come prepared to share and discuss your results and compare them with other people. We really want to help improve and elevate everyone’s ability to generate good data with minimal hassle.
Why are we doing this?
- We are hoping to increase knowledge and skills in the community when it comes to data processing.
- We are hoping to get some kind of unbiased comparison going so that we can compare the results and capabilities of various software solutions for handling GC×GC-MS data.
- It could be fun, or at least interesting.
Thanks for your interest!
James Harynuk, Flavio Franchina, and the rest of the MDGC team
FG4: Mass spectrometry: A powerful third dimension
If you would like to participate in the mass spectrometry focus group, a list of “hot” GC×GC-MS topics, which will be the objects of discussion, can be found below.
Topic 1) The force of habit: Is it time for a change?
1a) Cryogenic vs. alternative consumable-free thermal modulation devices
Topic 2) Adding more complexity
2a) Are we harnessing the full potential of the 3rd dimension?
2c) GC×GC-HR QqQMS: is there one dimension too much?
2d) Is it true that in GC×GC-MS, optimization is focused on the separation parameters, whilst the MS side is generally “overlooked”?
2e) The utility of dual detection, such as in GC×GC-FID/MS
Topic 3) Mass spectrometry and flow modulation: a “rocky” marriage
3a) Flow-modulated GC×GC-MS: why is it so rarely used?
3b) Flow-modulated GC×GC-MS vs thermal-modulation GC×GC-MS: advantages and disadvantages
3c) Flow-modulated GC×GC-MS: current situation
Topic 4) Bigger, better, faster, more complex?
4a) GC×GC-MS is still considered as a technique for the experts, with a large lab footprint. This is contradictory to the high demand for faster, fully automated methods with simple reporting and minimal review. Is the technique already up to such a task?
4b) Highly accurate and sensitive instrumentation gains more and more attention. This typically causes loss in universality (e.g., more selective ionization). Where to focus?
4c) “How dirty would you like it to be” how much can/should GC×GC-MS compensate for “just enough” sample preparation such as QuEChERS?
4d) There is an increasing interest in bio-active substances, typically polar, of low volatility and high molecular mass. Such properties are limiting factors in GC. Within such bio-driven analyses, how does GC×GC-MS compare to other chromatographic techniques?
Topic 5) GC×GC-MS: a future outlook
5a) A look backwards over the past 20 years
5b) What was the biggest recent GC×GC-MS evolution?
5c) Stability seems to have dominated the past 4-5 years
5d) Which scientific area using GC×GC-MS is growing the fastest?
5e) GC×GC-MS: 20 years from now
5f) Is the use of GC×GC-MS reasonable in a non-academic environment?
5g) Current and future challenges
Best Wishes,
Peter Tranchida & Benedikt Weggler
Topic 1) The force of habit: Is it time for a change?
1a) Cryogenic vs. alternative consumable-free thermal modulation devices
- Advantages and disadvantages
- Are other mass-based detection devices up to the 2nd dimension challenge?
Topic 2) Adding more complexity
2a) Are we harnessing the full potential of the 3rd dimension?
- 70 eV vs. softer ionization
- high-resolution vs. nominal
2c) GC×GC-HR QqQMS: is there one dimension too much?
2d) Is it true that in GC×GC-MS, optimization is focused on the separation parameters, whilst the MS side is generally “overlooked”?
2e) The utility of dual detection, such as in GC×GC-FID/MS
Topic 3) Mass spectrometry and flow modulation: a “rocky” marriage
3a) Flow-modulated GC×GC-MS: why is it so rarely used?
3b) Flow-modulated GC×GC-MS vs thermal-modulation GC×GC-MS: advantages and disadvantages
3c) Flow-modulated GC×GC-MS: current situation
Topic 4) Bigger, better, faster, more complex?
4a) GC×GC-MS is still considered as a technique for the experts, with a large lab footprint. This is contradictory to the high demand for faster, fully automated methods with simple reporting and minimal review. Is the technique already up to such a task?
4b) Highly accurate and sensitive instrumentation gains more and more attention. This typically causes loss in universality (e.g., more selective ionization). Where to focus?
4c) “How dirty would you like it to be” how much can/should GC×GC-MS compensate for “just enough” sample preparation such as QuEChERS?
4d) There is an increasing interest in bio-active substances, typically polar, of low volatility and high molecular mass. Such properties are limiting factors in GC. Within such bio-driven analyses, how does GC×GC-MS compare to other chromatographic techniques?
Topic 5) GC×GC-MS: a future outlook
5a) A look backwards over the past 20 years
5b) What was the biggest recent GC×GC-MS evolution?
5c) Stability seems to have dominated the past 4-5 years
5d) Which scientific area using GC×GC-MS is growing the fastest?
5e) GC×GC-MS: 20 years from now
5f) Is the use of GC×GC-MS reasonable in a non-academic environment?
5g) Current and future challenges
Best Wishes,
Peter Tranchida & Benedikt Weggler