These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative analysis of peak-detection techniques for comprehensive two-dimensional chromatography.
    Author: Latha I, Reichenbach SE, Tao Q.
    Journal: J Chromatogr A; 2011 Sep 23; 1218(38):6792-8. PubMed ID: 21839457.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]