Table 1.

Overview of analytical detectors compatible with GC or GC × GC.

Detector	Properties	Reference
FID	•Wide detector linearity range •Detector response proportional to C content of hydrocarbons •Weak sensitivity for heterotatoms •Post-column reaction in a Polyarc reactor possible for carbon-independent response	(Djokic et al., 2012, Marsman et al., 2007, De Saint Laumer et al., 2010, Tranchida and Mondello, 2019, Biedermann and Grob, 2009, Luong et al., 2019)
ToF-MS	•Mostly qualitative characterization of the hydrocarbon matrix •Most powerful analytic technique for mixtures of volatile compounds •More accurate and more expensive than 1D-GC–MS	(Van Geem et al., 2010, Dijkmans et al., 2015, Toraman et al., 2014, Djokic et al., 2018, Tranchida and Mondello, 2019)
TCD	•Similar application as FID •Lower linearity range and sensitivity	(Budiman and Nuryatini & Zuas, 2015, Miskolczi, 2013, Park et al., 2020)
SCD/NCD	•Element specific detection •Equimolar response •Trace amounts (high ppb range) of S/N-containing compounds detectable	(Yan, 1999, Yan, 2002, Yan, 2006, Tranchida and Mondello, 2019)
ECD	•Sensitive to electronegative elements (halogens and some forms of nitrogen and oxygen) •Non-linear detector •Co-elution of low electron-capture affinity compounds may interfere with the signal	(Eguchi et al., 2021, Hall and Williams, 2006, Bhaskar et al., 2007, Pellizzari, 1974, Muscalu et al., 2011, Booij et al., 1998)
AED	•Widest element range of all detectors (up to 23 elements) •Atomic emission spectra characteristic for each element	(Ross et al., 2001, Tranchida and Mondello, 2019, Bartle et al., 2009, Van Stee et al., 2002, Van Stee et al., 2003, Lorentz et al., 2017)
ICP-OES/MS	•Detection of metal concentrations in ultra-trace levels (ppb) •Sample preparation crucial	(Foppiano et al., 2020, Linge, 2008, Lienemann et al., 2007, Rahmi et al., 2007, Haraguchi, 2004, Navarro et al., 2002, Clases et al., 2021)