Unproductive Time Traps in ICP-MS Analysis and How to Avoid Them

Significance of the Topic

Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) is a cornerstone technique in analytical chemistry owing to its exceptional sensitivity, wide dynamic range, and tolerance to complex matrices. It underpins critical applications across environmental monitoring, food safety, pharmaceutical manufacturing, clinical research, life sciences, and nuclear energy. However, many laboratories encounter recurring inefficiencies—“time traps”—throughout their ICP-MS workflows. Identifying and mitigating these bottlenecks is essential to maximize productivity, ensure data quality, and maintain profitability.

Objectives and Overview of the Article

This article examines common unproductive activities in routine ICP-MS analysis, ranked by laboratory managers in a September 2020 Agilent online poll. It provides practical strategies and best practices to avoid these time traps, simplify method development, streamline sample preparation, reduce instrument downtime, and enhance data review processes.

Methodology and Instrumentation

A survey of laboratory managers identified the highest-impact time traps in ICP-MS workflows. Solutions were validated through application of modern ICP-MS features. The primary platform referenced is the Agilent 7850 ICP-MS system, equipped with:

• A collision/reaction cell operating in helium mode for universal removal of polyatomic interferences.
• Half-mass correction algorithms to address doubly charged ion overlaps.
• Ultra High Matrix Introduction (UHMI) system for direct analysis of samples up to 25 % total dissolved solids without manual dilution.
• Early Maintenance Feedback (EMF) sensors to schedule preventative maintenance based on sample count or runtime.
• MassHunter software with predefined method templates, Outlier Conditional Formatting (OCF), IntelliQuant semiquantitative screening, and interactive Help and Learning Center.

Main Findings and Discussion

The top ten ICP-MS time traps ranked by respondents were:

1. Sample and standard preparation (72 %)
2. Developing new methods (65 %)
3. Daily checks, cleaning, and tuning (63 %)
4. Instrument maintenance and downtime (63 %)
5. Learning a new instrument (59 %)
6. Reviewing and reporting results (52 %)
7. Remeasuring samples (51 %)
8. Setting up the sample sequence (44 %)
9. Screening samples before analysis (43 %)
10. Monitoring sample analysis (37 %)

Key strategies to address these issues include:

• Asking targeted questions during instrument selection to ensure real-world performance meets laboratory workflow requirements.
• Leveraging vendor-supplied method templates and SOPs to reduce method development time and minimize errors.
• Operating the collision/reaction cell in helium mode to remove common matrix-based interferences, enabling consistent analysis of complex samples.
• Applying half-mass correction for barium and rare earth element interferences on arsenic and selenium.
• Selecting multiple internal standards across the mass range and ionization potentials to ensure accurate drift and suppression correction.
• Introducing at least 0.5 % hydrochloric acid to improve chemical stability, wash-out performance, and mercury analysis.
• Using UHMI to avoid manual dilutions and extend matrix tolerance up to 25 % dissolved solids.
• Automating performance checks both pre- and post-run to detect issues early and prevent sample reruns.
• Configuring software features—such as batch templates, sublists, automatic dilution calculations, OCF, and IntelliQuant semiquantitative scans—to streamline sample sequences and data review.
• Implementing regular maintenance guided by EMF alerts and user-accessible tutorials to reduce unplanned downtime.

Benefits and Practical Applications

Adopting these solutions can reduce sample preparation time, eliminate redundant screening steps, minimize instrument tuning and maintenance frequency, and compress method development cycles from weeks to days. Improved data confidence results from fewer interferences, enhanced QC monitoring, and automated outlier detection. Ultimately, laboratories achieve faster turnaround, lower operational costs, higher throughput, and more satisfied analysts.

Future Trends and Opportunities

Emerging developments in ICP-MS will further enhance efficiency and data quality:

• Broader adoption of triple quadrupole ICP-MS for controlled reaction chemistries and ultra-low detection limits.
• AI-driven method optimization and autonomous instrument tuning.
• Cloud-based data analytics and LIMS integration for real-time process monitoring.
• Mobile interfaces and remote diagnostics to enable flexible instrument management.
• Collaborative online communities for rapid sharing of application knowledge and troubleshooting tips.

Conclusion

Routine ICP-MS analysis need not be hindered by avoidable time traps. By leveraging modern instrument capabilities, structured workflows, and proactive maintenance, laboratories can unlock the full potential of ICP-MS—delivering reliable, high-throughput elemental analysis while controlling costs and enhancing staff engagement.

References

• Poll conducted in September 2020 by Agilent Technologies.