TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative analysis of peak-detection techniques for comprehensive two-dimensional chromatography
AU - Latha, Indu
AU - Reichenbach, Stephen E.
AU - Tao, Qingping
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was funded in part by the Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln and the U.S. National Science Foundation under Award Number IIP-1013180.
PY - 2011/9/23
Y1 - 2011/9/23
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Chemometrics
KW - Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC)
KW - Peak detection
KW - Two-dimensional chromatography
KW - Two-step peak detection
KW - Watershed algorithm
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052091850&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052091850&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.07.052
DO - 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.07.052
M3 - Article
C2 - 21839457
AN - SCOPUS:80052091850
VL - 1218
SP - 6792
EP - 6798
JO - Journal of Chromatography A
JF - Journal of Chromatography A
SN - 0021-9673
IS - 38
ER -