Comparative analysis of peak-detection techniques for comprehensive two-dimensional chromatography
Introduction
Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) is a powerful technology for separating and analyzing compounds in complex samples. GC×GC data is processed to detect peaks and identify the associated compounds present in a sample. Typically, the goal of peak detection is to separately aggregate the data points belonging to each analyte peak. GC×GC peak detection popularly is performed by one of two approaches: the two-step algorithm [1] and the watershed algorithm [2], [3]. In the two-step algorithm, traditional one-dimensional (1D) peak detection is employed on each secondary chromatogram, then detected 1D peaks are merged to form two-dimensional (2D) peaks. The watershed algorithm performs peak detection by operating on 2D neighborhoods, i.e., in both retention-time dimensions simultaneously.
A recent study by Vivó-Truyols and Janssen [4] analyzed the effects of second-column retention-time shifts on the performance of 2D peak-detection techniques. Retention-time shift in consecutive secondary chromatograms in GC×GC may occur due to factors such as rapid temperature or pressure changes [5]. Rapid chromatographic changes can induce shifts that complicate data processing because all chromatographic peaks of a compound are expected to have the same retention-time. If the chromatography is rapidly varying (and cannot be improved to yield data without rapid peak shifts), then data processing and peak detection should account for retention-time shifts. Skov et al. [6] examined the nature and theory of retention-time shifts in GC×GC and described a method for shift correction based on cross-correlation for individual mass channels in adjacent secondary chromatograms. In the two-step algorithm, 1D peak merging typically accounts for retention-time shifts. For the watershed algorithm, retention-time shifts can be determined (e.g., with cross-correlation [6]) and then corrected either by aligning the data before peak detection or equivalently by adjusting the 2D neighborhoods of the watershed algorithm to account for shifts.
In their analysis, Vivó-Truyols and Janssen [4] compared the effects of retention-time shifts on both the two-step and watershed peak-detection algorithms. For the two-step approach, 1D peak merging accounted for retention-time shifts, whereas no shift corrections were made with the watershed algorithm. Their results indicated that watershed algorithm failed at a higher rate due to uncorrected second-dimension retention-time shifts. However, their comparison of peak-detection performance was confounded by accounting for retention-time shift in the two-step algorithm but not accounting for retention-time shift in the watershed algorithm.
This paper re-evaluates the performance of the two-step and watershed algorithms for retention-time shifts in the second-column separations when both employ shift correction. Simulated data is used to rigorously evaluate the peak-detection algorithms under controlled conditions with different levels of noise, retention-time shifts, and peak widths. The retention-time shifts in each simulated peak are corrected prior to both peak-detection algorithms for an unbiased comparison. These experiments demonstrate that when retention-time shift is corrected for both algorithms, the watershed algorithm detects peaks more accurately, over a wide range of conditions.
Section snippets
Two-step peak detection algorithm
The two-step algorithm builds on peak-detection methods used in traditional gas chromatography. In the first step, 1D peaks in each secondary chromatogram are detected by a 1D peak-detection algorithm. In the second step, a peak merging algorithm determines which of the detected 1D peaks should be merged to form 2D peaks [7].
The two-step algorithm typically uses two criteria to determine which 1D peaks should be merged: the overlap and unimodality criteria. The overlap criterion compares two
Overview of simulation
In the experiments described here, simulated 2D chromatographic peaks are used to rigorously compare both peak-detection algorithms under controlled conditions for different levels of noise, retention-time shifts, and peak widths. A single, resolved peak is simulated by interval sampling a 2D Gaussian function with parametric retention-time peak widths. Fig. 2(a) displays an example 2D peak as a series of 1D peaks. Each 1D second-column peak models a 1D chromatogram at a characteristic
Results
Table 1 compares results of both peak-detection algorithms for various parameter values, with 1000 test cases for each set of parameter values. In all cases shown in Table 1, the skew was −1, but, with skew correction, results for other levels of skew are not materially different. (Complete experimental test results for the simulations are reported as Supplementary Data.)
Table 1 lists the volume means and standard deviations for the signal and both peak-detection algorithms with different noise
Conclusion
A study by Vivó-Truyols and Janssen [4] discussed the probability of failure of the watershed algorithm for GC×GC data with varying second-dimension retention-time shifts. Their analysis compared the two-step and watershed peak-detection algorithms without accounting for the retention-time shifts in the watershed algorithm, whereas the shift was accounted for in the two-step algorithm. This caused the watershed algorithm to have a larger probability of failure than the two-step approach. This
Acknowledgements
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.
References (21)
- et al.
Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst.
(2004) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2010) - et al.
- et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2009) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2007) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2008) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2004) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2004) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2005)
Cited by (29)
Critical comparison of background correction algorithms used in chromatography
2022, Analytica Chimica ActaCitation Excerpt :In such a case, or if the background is of a frequency very similar to that of the relevant signals, problems may occur with the interpretation of the data. For example, peak detection may be hindered, and errors in classification, discrimination, and, especially, quantification, may occur [1–7]. It is, therefore, desirable to perform baseline-drift correction and noise removal to ensure a correct interpretation of the data, unless peak detection can be performed in such a way that it is not hindered by the presence of noise and drift.
An automated system for predicting detection limit and precision profile from a chromatogram
2020, Journal of Chromatography ACitation Excerpt :This paper places more emphasis on noise than signal throughout the stages of research. As for signal, sophisticated strategies for peak detection can be found in the literature [25–31]. The uncertainty prediction of this paper still has room for improvement in peak detection, but it achieves the intended goal, within the domain of applicability, that a chromatogram is the only requirement for the DL and precision profile.
Introduction to Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography—Theory and Practice
2017, Handbook of Advanced Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry TechniquesPeak detection methods for GC × GC: An overview
2016, TrAC - Trends in Analytical ChemistryCitation Excerpt :The probability of failure, such as e.g. oversegmentation, caused by differences in 2tr values between peaklets that belong to a single compound (e.g. due to temperature programming and instrumental variation) was studied in detail by Vivó-Truyols and Janssen [120] and was found to be 15–20% under normal conditions. In response, Latha et al. [121] showed that the rate of failure is much lower when shift correction is applied. However, this correction cannot be performed as an automated step in GCImage data processing.
A simple multi-scale Gaussian smoothing-based strategy for automatic chromatographic peak extraction
2016, Journal of Chromatography AForensic potential of comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography
2016, TrAC - Trends in Analytical Chemistry