A systematic investigation of comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry with dynamic pressure gradient modulation for high peak capacity separations

Abstract Dynamic pressure gradient modulation (DPGM) in full modulation mode is optimized for comprehensive two-dimensional (2D) gas chromatography (GC×GC) with time-of-fight mass spectrometry (TOFMS) detection to obtain high peak capacity separations and demonstrate broad applicability for complex samples. A pulse valve introduces an auxiliary carrier gas flow at a T-union connecting the first dimension (1D) column to the second dimension (2D) column. At a sufficiently high auxiliary pressure (Paux) the 1D flow is temporarily stopped. Then, during each modulation period (PM) the valve is turned off briefly, a period termed the pulse width (pw), allowing the 1D effluent to essentially be reinjected onto the 2D column for the modulated separations. Modifications to the modulator assembly are provided to improve performance. Method optimization is demonstrated for a 116-component test mixture by tuning the Paux and the pw. For a PM = 2 s and 1F of 0.10 ml/min, the optimal pw and initial Paux selected were 200 ms and 330.9 kPa (33 psig), respectively. The 30 min separation of the test mixture provided a 1D peak capacity of 1nc = 330 and a 2D peak capacity of 2nc = 15, hence an ideal 2D peak capacity nc,2D = 1nc×2nc = 4950. Likewise, the 2D peak capacity corrected for undersampling of the 1D separation was 4500 and corrected for both undersampling and sampling variation via statistical overlap theory was 4090. These results provide a 2-fold improvement in peak capacity relative to the previous DPGM study in full modulation mode for GC×GC-TOFMS. The optimized conditions were applied for a variety of applications: diesel fuel, derivatized cow serum, solid phase microextraction (SPME) of coffee headspace, and SPME of river water headspace. Additionally, the fraction of 2D separation space utilized (fcoverage), as defined by the minimum convex hull method, ranged from 0.60 – 0.85. We observed that any fcoverage correction to 2D peak capacity is highly sample dependent, since all samples, except for the diesel sample, were run with the same separation conditions, and yet the fcoverage ranged from 0.60 – 0.80.