Comparative analysis of peak-detection techniques for comprehensive two-dimensional chromatography

Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) is a powerful technology for separating complex samples. The typical goal of GC×GC peak detection is to aggregate data points of analyte peaks based on their retention times and intensities. Two techniques commonly used for two-dimensional pea...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Chromatography A Vol. 1218; no. 38; pp. 6792 - 6798
Main Authors: Latha, Indu, Reichenbach, Stephen E., Tao, Qingping
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 23.09.2011
Elsevier
Subjects:
Aggregates
Algorithms
Analytical chemistry
Chemistry
Chemometrics
Chromatographic methods and physical methods associated with chromatography
Chromatography
Chromatography, Gas - instrumentation
Chromatography, Gas - methods
comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography
Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC)
Computer simulation
Data points
Exact sciences and technology
Gas chromatographic methods
Peak detection
probability
Splitting
Two dimensional
Two-dimensional chromatography
Two-step peak detection
Watershed algorithm
Watersheds
Peak detection
Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC)
Two-dimensional chromatography
Watershed algorithm
Two-step peak detection
Chemometrics
Peak resolution
Two dimensional chromatography
Theoretical study
chromatography (GC×GC)
Gas chromatography
Comprehensive two-dimensional gas
Numerical simulation
Comparative study
ISSN:0021-9673, 1873-3778, 1873-3778
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) is a powerful technology for separating complex samples. The typical goal of GC×GC peak detection is to aggregate data points of analyte peaks based on their retention times and intensities. Two techniques commonly used for two-dimensional peak detection are the two-step algorithm and the watershed algorithm. A recent study [4] compared the performance of the two-step and watershed algorithms for GC×GC data with retention-time shifts in the second-column separations. In that analysis, the peak retention-time shifts were corrected while applying the two-step algorithm but the watershed algorithm was applied without shift correction. The results indicated that the watershed algorithm has a higher probability of erroneously splitting a single two-dimensional peak than the two-step approach. This paper reconsiders the analysis by comparing peak-detection performance for resolved peaks after correcting retention-time shifts for both the two-step and watershed algorithms. Simulations with wide-ranging conditions indicate that when shift correction is employed with both algorithms, the watershed algorithm detects resolved peaks with greater accuracy than the two-step method.
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2011.07.052
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
ISSN:0021-9673
1873-3778
1873-3778
DOI:10.1016/j.chroma.2011.07.052