This study systematically compares four widely used lysosome enrichment strategies, including density gradient separation, magnetic bead isolation, filter-based enrichment, and subcellular fractionation. Using the THP-1 monocytic cell line, the methods were evaluated for lysosome yield, purity, membrane integrity, reproducibility, scalability, and contamination through complementary analytical techniques and proteomics.The results showed that gradient- and bead-based methods achieved the highest lysosomal purity, while subcellular fractionation yielded larger numbers of lysosomes but with greater contamination and variability. Filter-based enrichment enabled rapid processing but recovered mainly nonintact lysosomes. The findings provide practical guidance for selecting lysosome isolation methods in both research and clinical applications.<blockquote><h4>The original article</h4><h4><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c05792">Benchmarking Lysosome Enrichment Methods: A Guide for Research and Clinical Translation</a></h4>Anniek L. de Jager, Sara Kassem, Louis Alesha, Brigitta A.E. Naber, Inge F. de Laat, Bas de Mooij, Kyra van der Pan, Erik Bos, Roman I. Koning, Jacques J.M. van Dongen*, Cristina Teodosio*, and Paula Díez*Anal. Chem. 2026, 98, 6, 4585–4600<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c05792">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c05792</a><h6>licensed under <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC-BY 4.0</a></h6></blockquote>Selected sections from the article follow. Formats and hyperlinks were adapted from the original.<div>Since their discovery by De Duve et al. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(1)</a> in 1955, lysosomes have emerged as dynamic organelles critical to cellular homeostasis, regulating processes from nutrient sensing to plasma membrane repair. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(2−5)</a> These acidic, enzyme-packed vesicles <a href="javascript:void(0);">(6,7)</a> are now acknowledged as central players in pathologies far beyond their classical association with lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs). Dysfunctional lysosomes are involved in neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s), <a href="javascript:void(0);">(8−10)</a> cancer metastasis, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(11−13)</a> and cardiovascular disorders. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(14,15)</a> At the same time, lysosomal proteins like GBA1 and LAMP2 serve as biomarkers and therapeutic targets. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(16−19)</a> Despite their clinical significance, a major challenge in lysosomal research persists since lysosomes constitute less than 5% of cellular volume, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(20,21)</a> requiring precise enrichment for accurate analysis in diagnostic and therapeutic development. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(22,23)</a>Current lysosome isolation methods, including density gradient-based separation, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(24−28)</a> filter-based size exclusion approaches, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(29)</a> magnetic particle phagocytosis, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(30−33)</a> subcellular fractionation (SCF), <a href="javascript:void(0);">(34)</a> and immunoprecipitation strategies, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(35,36)</a> vary widely in yield, purity, structural integrity, and practicality. For instance, density gradient-based methods, which often use Percoll <a href="javascript:void(0);">(37)</a> or sucrose, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(38)</a> while well-established, user-friendly, and cost-effective, coisolate organelles with similar densities, such as endosomes, peroxisomes, and mitochondria, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(39,40)</a> and can be time-consuming, potentially affecting lysosomal protein integrity. Conversely, filter-based size exclusion methods isolate lysosomes based on their size, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(29)</a> offering shorter processing times and straightforward protocols. Nevertheless, these approaches may result in cross-contamination, as various cellular vesicles share similar sizes. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(20,21)</a> Magnetic bead-based methods (e.g., superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, SPION) involve the endocytic uptake of magnetic beads, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(35,41)</a> offering specificity but altering lysosomal physiology through forced phagocytosis, which hampers functional assays, such as in cancer drug screening. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(42,43)</a> Finally, SCF, which employs sequential lysis steps to enrich specific organelles, including lysosomes, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(34,44)</a> is a rapid, easy-to-use, and cost-effective method; however, significant cross-contamination is linked to this method. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(34,44)</a> Such trade-offs are rarely addressed in single-modality studies, leaving clinicians and researchers without clear guidance for protocol selection. This gap is particularly critical in translational contexts, where diagnostic laboratories that prioritize high-purity lysosomes for biomarker discovery require protocols different from those of therapeutic teams that need lysosomes for drug efficacy testing.Previous comparative studies, such as the proteomic analysis by Singh et al., <a href="javascript:void(0);">(35)</a> have provided valuable insights but primarily focused on yield and purity assessments via proteomic markers, overlooking several key parameters with potentially relevant impacts in translational and clinical applications. Critically, these studies often omit functional and practical metrics: for instance, they typically do not evaluate lysosomal membrane integrity, which is vital for enzyme activity and therapeutic testing, nor do they consider the scalability and feasibility of protocols for contexts where only limited patient samples are available or the potential presence of isolation artifacts. This omission of practical, multimodal assessment represents a critical gap that prevents researchers from selecting a protocol optimized for specific clinical goals.Our study seeks to address these limitations by employing a multimodal framework that evaluates four widely used lysosome isolation methods across several metrics that are critical for clinical applications. We systematically assessed the yield and reproducibility of each method, factors that are essential for biobanking and high-throughput diagnostic workflows. We also examined organelle purity, crucial for avoiding false positives in proteomic biomarker screenings, together with lysosomal membrane integrity, an important consideration for functional studies and drug testing. Finally, we considered the scalability of each method, ensuring that our findings are relevant for studies involving rare or precious patient-derived cells together with the cost and processing time of each technique. Thus, by integrating nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), spectral flow cytometry, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics, our study revealed distinct advantages for each method depending on the intended application. With this comprehensive benchmark, we bridged a critical gap between fundamental lysosome biology and clinical implementation, guiding researchers and clinicians in the selection of the most appropriate isolation strategies tailored to their diagnostic or therapeutic goals.<h3>Experimental Section</h3><h4>Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry Analysis (LC–MS/MS)</h4>For liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) studies, a total of 15 μg of proteins were reduced with 10 mM DTT at 45 °C for 30 min, followed by alkylation with 40 mM 2-iodoacetamide (IAA, Sigma-Aldrich) at RT for 30 min. This last reaction was quenched with 20 mM DTT, and protein digestion and peptide recovery were performed using hydrophilic and hydrophobic beads (Sera-Mag Carboxylate-Modified Magnetic Particles, Cytiva, Marlborough, MA/USA) according to the Single-Pot Solid-Phase-enhanced Sample Preparation (SP3) method. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(46,47)</a> In short, samples were incubated twice with beads (1:10 (w/w) protein:bead ratio) in 70% acetonitrile (ACN) for 18 min at RT. After incubation, bead-bound proteins were retained by using a DynaMag-PCR Magnet (Thermo Fisher), and contaminants were washed away three times with 80% ethanol (Sigma-Aldrich). Proteins were digested using a Trypsin/LysC mix (1:25 (w/w) enzyme:protein ratio, Promega, Madison, WI/USA) in 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate at RT overnight. Beads were then washed twice with ACN, after which peptides were eluted in 2% (v/v) dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, Thermo Fisher), lyophilized in a freeze-dryer, and stored at −20 °C. Samples were then tagged using the tandem mass tag (TMT) labeling kit (TMTpro 16plex tags, Thermo Fisher) by resuspending the lyophilized peptides in 40 mM HEPES pH 8.4 and labeling with the TMT tags at a 1:5 (w/w) sample:tag ratio for 1 h at RT. The labeling reaction was quenched with 5% hydroxylamine. TMT-labeled lysosome samples were pooled, lyophilized in a freeze-dryer, and stored at −20 °C until LC–MS/MS analysis.<h4>Mass Spectrometry Data Acquisition and Analysis</h4>MT-labeled peptides were dissolved in solvent A (water/formic acid (FA), 100/0.1 (v/v)) and analyzed by online C18 nano-HPLC MS/MS, coupling an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=3&amp;search=UltiMate+3000">UltiMate 3000 gradient HPLC system</a> (Thermo Fisher) and an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/401">Orbitrap Exploris 480 mass spectrometer</a> (Thermo Fisher). A total of 12 fractions were injected onto a precolumn (300 μm × 5 mm; PepMap100 C18 5 μm, Thermo Fisher) equilibrated with solvent A and eluted via a homemade analytical nano-HPLC column (50 cm × 75 μm; ReproSil-Pur C18-AQ 1.9 μm) using solvent B (80/20/0.1 (v/v/v) ACN/water/FA) in a gradient from 5 to 30% in 160 min. The nano-HPLC column was drawn to a tip of ∼5 μm and functioned as an electrospray needle. A Sonation PRSO-V2 column oven was used to maintain the analytical column temperature at 50 °C. The MS1 spectra were recorded in the Orbitrap at a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) range of 350–1,600, a resolution of 120,000, a maximum injection time of 50 ms, and automatic gain control (AGC) at standard. Dynamic exclusion was applied after n = 1 with an exclusion duration of 45 s and a mass tolerance of 10 ppm. Charge states 2–5 were included. Precursors for MS2 were selected using a TopSpeed method of 3 s at a resolution of 45,000 and fragmented by high-energy collision-induced dissociation (HCD) at a normalized collision energy (NCE) of 36%, with an AGC at 200 and the maximum injection time set to auto. The isolation window for MS/MS was 1.2 Da.Raw data files were converted to the peak list by using <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1782">Proteome Discoverer v2.4</a> (Thermo Fisher), followed by protein identification employing the UniProtKB database (Homo sapiens, 20,596 entries) using Mascot v2.2.07 (Matrix Science Inc., Boston, MA/USA) with the following parameters: precursor and fragment mass tolerances of 10 ppm and 0.02 Da, respectively; TMT16plex on N-term and Lys as fixed modifications; oxidation on Met and acetylation of N-term as variable modifications; and full tryptic digestion (no P rule) with up to 2 missed cleavages. A false discovery rate (FDR) of 1% was set for peptide spectrum matches (PSMs), peptides, and proteins.The MS data have been deposited via the PRIDE partner repository to the ProteomeXchange Consortium with the identifier PXD040003.<h3>Results</h3><h4>Quantification and Size Distribution of Isolated Vesicle Fractions</h4>To assess the yield and size distribution of vesicles isolated by different methods, nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) was employed. The SCF procedure yielded the highest median number of vesicles per cell (2,356.3 ± 7,461.7; median ± range), followed by gradient-based (1,630.2 ± 1632.3), filter-based (228.2 ± 265.6), and bead-based isolation (27.8 ± 35.2). Both filter- and bead-based approaches resulted in significantly lower yields compared to SCF (p-value = 0.002 and p-value &lt;0.0001, respectively), and the gradient-based method yielded significantly more vesicles than the bead-based approach (p-value = 0.002; <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c05792#fig1">Figure 1</a>A).<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Anal_Chem_2026_98_6_4585_4600_Figure_1_Quantification_and_size_analyses_of_isolated_vesicles_2d5c120f05.jpeg" alt="Anal. Chem. 2026, 98, 6, 4585–4600: Figure 1. Quantification and size analyses of isolated vesicles. A) Quantification of isolated vesicles per cell, shown as median with range. Circles represent technical replicates. B) Size distribution of isolated vesicles (in nm), displaying average D10 (red), D50 (blue), and D90 (gray), depicted as median with range. Circles represent technical replicates. C–F) Particle distribution plots showing mean concentration at specific sizes; each line represents a technical replicate. For each method, six technical replicates are shown, except for SCF, which includes 12 replicates. SCF, subcellular fractionation. Statistical significance: p &lt; 0.05 and FDR 5%. For statistical analysis, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used and corrected for multiple comparisons using the method of Benjamini and Hochberg." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Anal_Chem_2026_98_6_4585_4600_Figure_1_Quantification_and_size_analyses_of_isolated_vesicles_2d5c120f05.jpeg 126w," sizes="100vw" width="1383" height="1708">Median vesicle size (D50) was comparable across all methods: 159.5 ± 17.2 nm (gradient-based), 169.9 ± 82.7 nm (filter-based), 168.9 ± 42.4 nm (bead-based), and 150.0 ± 55.6 nm (SCF). Similarly, decile 10 (D10) values were consistent, ranging from 87.1 ± 87.3 nm (SCF) to 108.2 ± 3.1 nm (gradient-based). However, filter-based isolation led to higher size heterogeneity of the isolated particles, capturing significantly larger vesicles at the upper end (D90:308.5 ± 110.7 nm) compared to SCF (244.9 ± 112.6 nm, p-value = 0.005), while gradient- and bead-based methods showed intermediate D90 values (250.8 ± 31.7 nm and 273.0 ± 45.9 nm, respectively; <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c05792#fig1">Figure 1</a>B). Notably, greater intra-assay variation in concentration and size distribution was observed with filter-based and SCF methods compared to the other approaches (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c05792#fig1">Figure 1</a>C–F).<h4>Morphology of the Isolated Fractions</h4>Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of the isolated fractions confirmed the presence of heterogeneously sized vesicles, in line with the size distributions obtained by NTA. Notably, only the gradient-based method yielded relatively pure vesicle preparations. In contrast, filter-based and SCF methods displayed contamination with cellular debris or protein aggregates, while the bead-based approach was associated with the presence of lipid structures (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c05792#fig2">Figure 2</a>).<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Anal_Chem_2026_98_6_4585_4600_Figure_2_Transmission_electron_microscopy_TEM_of_isolated_fractions_f14ddbe180.jpeg" alt="Anal. Chem. 2026, 98, 6, 4585–4600: Figure 2. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of isolated fractions. Panels A–D show TEM images of the four isolated fractions. Insets display magnified views of the regions outlined in black squares. Black arrows indicate identified representative isolated vesicles, and white arrows denote areas of contamination." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Anal_Chem_2026_98_6_4585_4600_Figure_2_Transmission_electron_microscopy_TEM_of_isolated_fractions_f14ddbe180.jpeg 145w," sizes="100vw" width="1263" height="1361"><h3>Conclusion</h3>This study provides a systematic benchmarking of four lysosome isolation strategies, revealing inherent trade-offs among yield, integrity, purity, and reproducibility driven by their underlying separation principles. No single method is universally optimal; instead, the method selection must be guided by the intended downstream application. By integrating complementary analytical approaches in a clinically relevant and challenging monocytic model, our work offers a practical framework to support the informed selection of lysosome enrichment strategies, facilitating reliable lysosomal analyses in both research and translational settings.</div>

Benchmarking Lysosome Enrichment Methods: A Guide for Research and Clinical Translation

A Method for the Detection of Tire Wear Microplastics in Zebrafish Guts by Laterally Resolved LA-ICP-MS-Based Elemental Fingerprinting and Chemometrics

This leaflet is intended to help participants in quantitative proficiency testing (PT) schemes to better understand the performance assessment made by the PT provider [1-4].<h3>Performance assessment parameters&nbsp;</h3><h4>Assigned value&nbsp;</h4>In order to assess individual performances, the results reported by participants are compared to the value assigned by the PT provider (xpt). ISO 13528 [1] suggests five different ways to obtain xpt (Figure 1). In this context, the design of the PT scheme must reflect the objectives of the scheme, comparing results either to a predetermined xpt (independent from the participant results), or to a value derived from the reported results. The PT provider is responsible for defining xpt , taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of the various possibilities when establishing metrological traceability or estimating the uncertainty of the assigned value, u(xpt).<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Eurachem_Figure_1_e5ef5d1f9c.jpg" alt="Eurachem - Figure 1 Options for obtaining the assigned value, Xpt" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Eurachem_Figure_1_e5ef5d1f9c.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="640" height="382"><h4>Uncertainty of the assigned value&nbsp;</h4>The uncertainty of the assigned value u(xpt) can be estimated in at least five different ways [1], each corresponding to the value assignment strategy illustrated in Figure 1. The different uncertainty evaluation methods are listed in Figure 2. This uncertainty can be reported as a standard uncertainty (u (xpt)), or as an expanded uncertainty U (xpt) with a coverage factor k, where U (xpt) = k . u (xpt). The choice of k will impact the level of confidence (e.g. approximately 95 % for k = 2).<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Eurachem_Figure_2_f41ebc0c61.jpg" alt="Eurachem: Figure 2 Options for obtaining the uncertainity of the assigned value, u(Xpt)" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Eurachem_Figure_2_f41ebc0c61.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="727" height="378"><h4>Standard deviation for proficiency assessment&nbsp;</h4>Five possibilities are suggested by ISO 13528 to set the standard deviation for proficiency assessment spt (Figure 3). The chosen approach must comply with the objectives of the PT scheme.&nbsp;<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Eurachem_Figure_3_f09cb3969e.jpg" alt="Eurachem: Figure 3 Options for obtaining the standard deviation for proficiency assesment" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Eurachem_Figure_3_f09cb3969e.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="638" height="355">Two approaches for performance assessments use spt as shown in Table 1.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Eurachem_Table_1_Scoring_for_performance_assessment_3dd03aa3fb.jpg" alt="Eurachem: Table 1 - Scoring for performance assessment." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Eurachem_Table_1_Scoring_for_performance_assessment_3dd03aa3fb.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="1390" height="571"><h3>Performance assessment&nbsp;</h3>All performance assessments are based on the difference between the participant’s results (xi) and the assigned value (xpt) divided by a normalisation factor (Table 1).&nbsp;<ul><li>The percent difference D% is the normalised difference expressed as a percentage of xpt , for which a prescribed maximum relative permissible error (dE% = dE / xpt) is defined by the PT provider.&nbsp;</li><li>The z score (unitless) compares the participant’s deviation from the assigned value with the standard deviation for proficiency assessment (spt). When the uncertainty of the assigned value is significant (u(xpt) &gt; 0.3 spt), the z’ score should be used instead, to include the contribution of u(xpt) in the denominator.&nbsp;</li><li>The zeta (ζ) score (unitless) states whether the laboratory’s result agrees with the assigned value within the respective uncertainty. The denominator is the combined (standard) uncertainty of the assigned value u(xpt) and the (standard) measurement uncertainty reported by the laboratory u(xi). An unsatisfactory zeta score can either be caused by an inappropriate estimation of the measured quantity value (e.g. concentration, content), or of its measurement uncertainty, or both.&nbsp;</li><li>The En score (unitless), unlike the zeta score, uses a combination of expanded uncertainties as the normalisation factor. This combination corresponds to a confidence interval of approximately 95 %. En scores are often used in metrology comparisons among calibration laboratories.</li></ul><h3>Interpretation of performance scores&nbsp;</h3>According to ISO 13528:2022 clause 9.4.2, the conventional interpretation of the z, z’ and ζ scores is as follows:&nbsp;<ul><li>A result that gives |score| ≤ 2.0 is considered to be acceptable, indicating satisfactory performance.&nbsp;</li><li>A result that gives 2.0 &lt; |score| &lt; 3.0 is considered to give a warning signal, indicating questionable performance.&nbsp;</li><li>A result that gives |score| ≥ 3.0 is considered to be unacceptable (or action signal), indicating unsatisfactory performance.&nbsp;</li></ul>Similarly, |En| &lt; 1 and |D%| &lt; dE% indicate successful (acceptable) performance.

Understanding PT performance assessment

Article

Academy

Scientific article

Science and research

Eurachem is a European network promoting international traceability of chemical measurements and good analytical practice. It provides expert guidance, supports method validation, uncertainty evaluation, proficiency testing, and facilitates discussion on technical and policy issues in analytical quality.

Eurachem

Everything from the world of analytical chemistry in one place. We connect people in solving their problems. At Labrulez you will find all the necessary information easily, quickly and clearly. Stop searching and start finding.

LabRulez

Agilent Technologies

AZoM

Bruker

Thermo Fisher Scientific

SelectScience

Can the TopScan 4300 FTIR test liquid? What is the detection limit of the 4300 FTIR? Is ambient light an issue for Vaya Raman spectrometer?
Lets discuss some of the most common questions about Agilent Handheld spectrometers.
<blockquote>
Presenter: Yanqia Wang, PhD (Application Engineer, Molecular Spectroscopy, Agilent Technologies, Inc.)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Dr. Yanqia Wang started working for Agilent Technologies Inc. as a FTIR application Engineer in 2013, providing pre-&amp;post-sale application support. The products he covers from Bench-top FTIR microscopes to various Mobile FTIR spectrometers. Dr. Wang received his PhD of analytical chemistry from Duke University in 2004, doing dynamic IR spectroscopy research. Then he joined Fitzpatrick Center for Photonics at Duke University, doing Tissue Raman spectrometer instrumentation. Since 2007, Dr. Wang worked for Avery Dennison Corp. as a spectroscopist, providing molecular analytical support to the research &amp; development.
</blockquote>

Agilent Technologies: Common Handheld FTIR and Raman Questions Answered

Common Handheld FTIR and Raman Questions Answered

Lets discuss some of the most common questions about Agilent Handheld spectrometers.

Designed to be used in a GMP-compliant warehouse, the Agilent Vaya Raman system accelerates the identification test by enabling raw-material testing through transparent and opaque containers.
Leveraging a patented optical design and algorithm, Vaya uses spatially offset Raman spectroscopy (SORS) technology to transform the reception of raw materials.
<blockquote>
Presenter: Yanqia Wang, PhD (Application Engineer, Molecular Spectroscopy, Agilent Technologies, Inc.)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Dr. Yanqia Wang started working for Agilent Technologies Inc. as a FTIR application Engineer in 2013, providing pre-&amp;post-sale application support. The products he covers from Bench-top FTIR microscopes to various Mobile FTIR spectrometers. Dr. Wang received his PhD of analytical chemistry from Duke University in 2004, doing dynamic IR spectroscopy research. Then he joined Fitzpatrick Center for Photonics at Duke University, doing Tissue Raman spectrometer instrumentation. Since 2007, Dr. Wang worked for Avery Dennison Corp. as a spectroscopist, providing molecular analytical support to the research &amp; development.
</blockquote>

Agilent Technologies: Raw Materials ID and Counterfeit ID Workshop: Learn how Spatially Offset Raman Spectroscopy (SORS) Simplifies this Analysis

Raw Materials ID and Counterfeit ID Workshop: Learn how Spatially Offset Raman Spectroscopy (SORS) Simplifies this Analysis

Leveraging a patented optical design and algorithm, Vaya uses spatially offset Raman spectroscopy (SORS) technology to transform the reception of raw materials.

Raw Materials ID and Counterfeit ID Workshop: SORS

Transmission analysis of liquid samples has been an indispensable part of FTIR spectroscopy. However, the traditional transmission methods are time-consuming and expensive. Agilent’s DialPath technology is a unique and innovative methodology for measuring liquids as easy and simple as an ATR method.
The Agilent’s mobile FTIR systems equipped with DialPath have been widely used in industry and Academia as it offers many advantages, such as the variable pathlength capability, over the classic transmission cells in both quantitative and qualitative analyses.
<blockquote>
Presenter: Yanqia Wang, PhD (Application Engineer, Molecular Spectroscopy, Agilent Technologies, Inc.)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Dr. Yanqia Wang started working for Agilent Technologies Inc. as a FTIR application Engineer in 2013, providing pre-&amp;post-sale application support. The products he covers from Bench-top FTIR microscopes to various Mobile FTIR spectrometers. Dr. Wang received his PhD of analytical chemistry from Duke University in 2004, doing dynamic IR spectroscopy research. Then he joined Fitzpatrick Center for Photonics at Duke University, doing Tissue Raman spectrometer instrumentation. Since 2007, Dr. Wang worked for Avery Dennison Corp. as a spectroscopist, providing molecular analytical support to the research &amp; development.
</blockquote>

Agilent Technologies: DialPath—Easiest Way for Liquid Quantitation by FTIR Spectroscopy

DialPath—Easiest Way for Liquid Quantitation by FTIR Spectroscopy

Agilent’s DialPath technology is a unique and innovative methodology for measuring liquids as easy and simple as an ATR method.

DialPath for Liquid Quantitation by FTIR Spectroscopy

IR spectroscopy is a ubiquitous analytical technique that was first used during World War II. Since that time it has undergone significant development, providing a means for the analysis of many types of samples both in the laboratory and in the field.
This session will focus on the theory of Infrared and will discuss some modern infrared analytical techniques.
<blockquote>
Presenter: Louis Tisinger, PhD (Application Engineer, Molecular Spectroscopy, Agilent Technologies, Inc.)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Louis (Lou) Tisinger has a Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry from Miami University in Oxford Ohio, where his graduate research involved the study of ATR imaging and microscope performance in vibrational spectroscopy. Most of his career has been related to pre- and post-sales support of FTIR spectrometers, microscopes, imaging systems, and thermal analytical instruments, focusing on analyzing customer samples, demonstrations, post-sales training, troubleshooting, and R&amp;D.
</blockquote>

Agilent Technologies: A discussion on the Theory of FTIR

A discussion on the Theory of FTIR

This session will focus on the theory of Infrared and will discuss some modern infrared analytical techniques.

In this application, we will review a fast, easy and reliable analysis method of THCA and CBDA decarboxylation in cannabis oil and flower samples by infrared spectroscopy.
<blockquote>
Presenter: Rogelio García Juárez (Application Scientist, Agilent Technologies, Inc.)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Rogelio García has a Bachelor’s degree in Pharmaceutical Chemistry from the University National of Mexico and a Master´s degree in Environmental Engineering from the National Polytechnic Institute. He worked in environmental laboratories in the development of methods and applications in water, soil, and air and method design for the pharmaceutical and food industry. He also worked in the implementation of quality management systems in laboratories to obtain accreditation in the 17025 standard, validation process, and analysis of the uncertainty of the method. In 2015, he joined Agilent Technologies as an Application Scientist for Molecular Spectroscopy in UV-Vis, FTIR, and Raman techniques, at Agilent México and Latin America.
</blockquote>

Agilent Technologies: Cannabinoid analysis by FTIR

Cannabinoid analysis by FTIR

Fast, easy and reliable analysis method of THCA and CBDA decarboxylation in cannabis oil and flower samples by infrared spectroscopy.

Throughout the manufacturing process, routine analytical techniques such as FTIR, NIR, and XRF are used to ensure production optimization and product quality.
This presentation explores various quality control applications in the chemical and polymer industry.
<blockquote>
Presenter: Matt Bartucci (Application Scientist, Thermo Fisher Scientific)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Dr. Matt Bartucci earned his Ph.D. from Loyola University, followed by postdoctoral research for the United States Army Research Labs at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Matt has been an FTIR applications scientist with Thermo Fisher Scientific since 2017, and has expertise in applying advanced FTIR techniques to support novel material research. He currently works out of the Center of Excellence Laboratory located in Bannockburn, IL.
</blockquote>

Thermo Scientific: Building Confidence in Quality Assurance

Building Confidence in Quality Assurance

Various quality control applications in the chemical and polymer industry.

Learn how the Agilent 4300 can easily assess coating ID, quality, authenticity and wear delivering an actionable result in less than 30 seconds.Coatings researchers and manufacturers are constantly striving to meet the ever-increasing demands on coating function, performance, and longevity.From Aerospace to Automotive, marine, and architectural coatings the versatile Agilent 4300 handheld FTIR is ideally suited to the on-site Mid IR measurement of coatings on surfaces and large objects.Knowledgeably assess factors such as identification, quality, authenticity and wear of your material or coating using the Agilent 4300 handheld FTIR.Who should attend:<ul><li>Material scientists, coating manufacturers, manufacturers who use coatings within their manufacturing process</li></ul><blockquote>Presenter: Donald Inglis (Product Specialist EMEAI for FTIR, Agilent Technologies)Donald has worked in analytical instrumentation for over 30 years starting his career as a field service engineer in chromatography and mass spectroscopy before moving into commercial sales. Becoming a product specialist in portable, handheld FTIR and Raman systems over a decade ago at Agilent Technologies.</blockquote>

Agilent Technologies: Agilent 4300 Handheld Webinar Series

Coatings Evaluation by Handheld FTIR

Learn how the Agilent 4300 can easily assess coating ID, quality, authenticity and wear delivering an actionable result in less than 30 seconds.

Agilent 4300 Handheld - Coatings Evaluation by Handheld FTIR

In an emission experimental setup, the sample itself acts as light source of the spectrometer and may emit light in various scenarios, e.g.: thermal emission, photoluminescence or the characterization of self-made lasers and other emission devices. Therefore, emission spectroscopy is established in versatile application fields in academia as well as in industrial applied research &amp; development or failure analysis.Bruker provides innovative instrumental solutions for emission spectroscopy with a broad palette of research spectrometers, dedicated measurement modules and accessories. In a series of customer webinars, we will explain the basic principles and give application examples as well as practical handling hints for emission spectroscopy.<div><div><div><div><blockquote><h5>Part 1: General Setup of Emission Experiments and Determination of Emissivity.</h5><a data-g-name="CallToAction" data-tracking="{&quot;classification&quot;:&quot;default&quot;,&quot;webinarDate&quot;:1595203200000,&quot;onWebinar&quot;:true,&quot;external&quot;:true}" data-protectable="" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://register.gotowebinar.com/recording/6908255056900555277">Watch Recording of Part 1&nbsp;</a></a></blockquote><div><blockquote><h5>Part 2: Photoluminescence (PL) Experiments: Challenges and the Suitable Instrumental Solutions.</h5><a data-g-name="CallToAction" data-tracking="{&quot;classification&quot;:&quot;default&quot;,&quot;webinarDate&quot;:1595203200000,&quot;onWebinar&quot;:true,&quot;external&quot;:true}" data-protectable="" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://register.gotowebinar.com/recording/216857088501568015">Watch Recording of Part 2&nbsp;</a></a></blockquote><div><blockquote><h5>Part 3: Step Scan as a Powerful Tool for Emission Experiments and Source Characterization.</h5><a data-g-name="CallToAction" data-tracking="{&quot;classification&quot;:&quot;default&quot;,&quot;webinarDate&quot;:1595203200000,&quot;onWebinar&quot;:true,&quot;external&quot;:true}" data-protectable="" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://register.gotowebinar.com/recording/6306834291730245889">Watch Recording of Part 3&nbsp;</a></a></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div>

FTIR Emission Spectroscopy

We will explain the basic principles and give application examples as well as practical handling hints for emission spectroscopy.

<div><div id="inner_content_body_text" data-content-id="394785">Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) is vital to reaching global net-zero targets. Monitoring impurities such as sulfur compounds, oxides of nitrogen, oxygen, and water is critical to maintaining pipeline integrity, safety, and environmental compliance.Join us to explore how advanced gas analysis technologies - Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and mass spectrometry - provide real-time insight into CO₂ purity and process performance. We’ll also discuss how these tools enable efficient production of electro-fuels (e-fuels), where captured CO₂ and renewable hydrogen are converted into sustainable, “drop-in” alternatives to fossil fuels.Join the free webinar with certification of attendance now.<h5>Attend This Webinar to:</h5><ul><li>Understand the critical role of monitoring impurities to maintain pipeline integrity and ensure safe operation.</li><li>Discover how Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy enables precise, online monitoring of CO₂ purity and impurity profiles in CCUS pipelines.</li><li>Learn how FTIR's real-time, multi-component analysis ensures that captured CO₂ meets specifications required for safe transport and storage - whether for sequestration or utilization.</li><li>Explore how captured CO₂ is combined with green hydrogen to produce synthesis gas, a feedstock for manufacturing e-fuels - a class of sustainable, drop-in fuels designed to replace fossil-derived energy sources.</li><li>Learn about mass spectrometry as a proven solution for demanding environments, offering fast cycle times for high-throughput operations, versatile analytical methods for complex gas mixtures, and high reliability with low cost of ownership.</li></ul><h5>Ideal For:</h5><ul><li>Individuals in the carbon capture value chain in the following disciplines:<ul><li>Academia: colleges &amp; universities; research institutes</li><li>CCUS technology providers</li><li>Food &amp; Beverage packagers</li><li>Government R&amp;D labs, regulatory agencies</li><li>Industrial manufacturing such as cement, chemicals, iron &amp; steel, oil &amp; gas</li><li>Pipeline owners</li><li>Power plants, electric utilities</li><li>Specialty gas companies</li><li>Waste facilities, incinerators</li></ul></li></ul><blockquote>Presenter: Samuel Evans, Senior Sales Development Manager, Thermo Fisher ScientificSamuel Evans is a highly accomplished Senior Sales Development Manager at Thermo Fisher Scientific. He holds a PhD in Chemistry, specializing in heterogenous catalysis, which has made him an authority in the field of gas analysis. Samuel's primary focus lies in engaging with customers within the clean energy sector across EMEA and North America. Leveraging his technical expertise, he tailors solutions to meet the unique requirements of each customer in this rapidly evolving industry.&nbsp;Presenter: Daniel Merriman, Senior Advisor, Process Analyzers, Thermo Fisher ScientificDaniel Merriman has worked in the field of process analytics since joining the former VG Instruments business in 1988 now a part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, holding many positions in technical, sales and marketing – he is now supporting the strategic marketing group within the Environmental and Process Monitoring business of Thermo Fisher Scientific.</blockquote></div></div>

Thermo Fisher Scientific: Achieving Net-Zero: Precision Monitoring in CCUS and Downstream Chemicals

Achieving Net-Zero: Precision Monitoring in CCUS and Downstream Chemicals

Learn how FTIR and MS enable accurate CO₂ impurity monitoring for CCUS and e-fuel production, ensuring pipeline integrity.

Precision Monitoring in CCUS and Downstream Chemicals

Join us for this dual‑session SelectScience® webinar exploring hydrogen impurity testing and analytical strategies for achieving ISO 14687‑aligned fuel quality. To better suit your schedule and time zone, the webinar will be offered in two separate sessions:<ul><li>Session 1: 09:00 BST | 10:00 CEST</li><li>Session 2: 10:00 PDT | 13:00 EDT | 18:00 BST</li></ul>As hydrogen scales across energy, transport, and industrial applications, understanding fuel purity is fundamental for compliance, safety, and uptime. At present, only a limited number of instruments are capable of addressing the full hydrogen impurity matrix, meaning that most testing strategies continue to rely on a combination of analytical technologies aligned to the specific production pathway.In this webinar, Tyler Roberts, Market Manager of Applied Markets at Shimadzu, presents a practical, process‑aware framework for hydrogen impurity testing. He will outline how different analytical technologies contribute to a complete workflow, including:<ul><li>System GC for permanent gases, hydrocarbons, and sulfur compounds</li><li>GC‑MS for organic impurity identification and speciation</li><li>Ion chromatography for ammonia and halogenated acids at the lowest required detection limits</li><li>FTIR for rapid multi‑component screening from a single sample</li></ul>Covering pathways from steam methane reforming (SMR) and electrolysis to ammonia cracking and liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC) systems, this session will guide you in building the analytical foundation for confident hydrogen quality assurance benchmarked against ISO 14687.<h4>Who should attend?</h4>This event is perfect for:<ul><li>Analytical chemists</li><li>QC lab scientists</li><li>Hydrogen production process engineers</li><li>Fuel cell researchers</li><li>Fuel cell test engineers</li><li>Catalyst researchers</li><li>Lab managers</li><li>Lab procurement specialists</li></ul><h5>Certificate of attendance</h5><ul><li>If you attend the live webinar, you will automatically receive a certificate of attendance, including a learning outcomes summary, for continuing education purposes.</li><li>If you view the on-demand webinar, you can request a certificate of attendance by emailing editor@selectscience.net.</li></ul><h4>Webinar details</h4><ul><li>Cost: Free to attend</li><li>Location: Online</li><li>Duration: 60 minutes</li></ul>Registration is required to secure your place. If you register but can’t attend live, you will receive a link to the on‑demand recording once it becomes available<blockquote>Speaker: Tyler Roberts (Market Manager, Applied Markets, Shimadzu Scientific Instruments)Tyler Roberts holds a Master’s in Analytical Chemistry from the University of Arizona and has built a reputation for bridging deep technical expertise with market-driven innovation. Tyler is now the Market Manager for Applied Markets at Shimadzu Scientific Instruments, where he leads technical marketing strategy across the energy, chemicals, and materials sectors and is a vocal advocate for advancing analytical science in high-impact industries.Moderator: Olivia Long (Editorial Team, SelectScience)</blockquote>

Shimadzu: What’s in your hydrogen? Analytical toolkits for fuel purity analysis

What’s in your hydrogen? Analytical toolkits for fuel purity analysis

Hydrogen impurity testing and ISO 14687 compliance. Discover GC, GC-MS, IC, and FTIR strategies for reliable fuel quality assurance.