Lab results’ accuracy and efficiency hinge on using the proper analytical techniques. Unfortunately, finding the best method can be challenging when each system has unique pros and cons and laboratory equipment shipping delays limit available options.

One analytical technique’s benefits do not always significantly outweigh another’s. If you have run into this issue or had difficulty determining the best option, it may be best to consider a hybrid approach. 

Advantages of Hybrid Analytical Techniques

As their name implies, hybrid analytical techniques combine two or more analytical methods to provide more holistic analyses. The most significant advantage of these approaches is the wealth of information they provide. Because they analyze samples along different lines, they offer more insight in a single pass.

Hybrid analytical techniques are also more reliable. Unreliable data costs organizations $12.9 billion a year and in some labs, inaccurate or misleading results can lead to health and safety issues down the line. Hybrid methods minimize that risk because one step in the analysis can determine what another misses.

That reliability makes hybrid approaches more precise than their conventional counterparts. These methods leave less room for error and omission, making them more likely to identify and quantify trace compounds. Labs working with highly sensitive materials or in the medical sector stand to gain the most from that precision.

Hybrid Analytical Technique Examples

Choosing the right hybrid method — especially amid laboratory equipment shipping delays — relies on understanding the various options and how they work. With that in mind, here are four of the most popular hybrid analytical techniques.

Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) is one of the most straightforward and common hybrid methods. This practice uses a gas chromatograph to separate a sample into its components, then analyzes those pieces with a mass spectrometer.

Using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry, GC-MS quantifies samples by their boiling point and mass-to-charge ratio. As a result, it is an ideal way to find the individual components within a sample down to their precise molecular mass. The latter half of the process can also catch things the first did not, like non-volatile substances.

GC-MS is also highly efficient and requires little training outside of what lab professionals already know. Considering over 20% of human errors in labs have potentially dangerous consequences, familiarity and ease of use are critical.

Like GC-MS, Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) separates samples via chromatography before analyzing them with MS. Unlike GC-MS, it uses liquid chromatography instead of gas. Consequently, it has similar benefits but slightly different applications.

LC-MS’s initial analysis will reveal a sample’s polarity, not its volatility. That can be helpful when many elements have melting points within a few degrees, making precise identification difficult. Most GC processes are also destructive, but LC is not, making LC-MS a better fit for rare or expensive samples.

Because LC-MS offers high accuracy with sensitive samples, it is a popular choice in biomedical labs. Pharmaceutical companies often employ it to see how long drugs stay in the body or to map peptides in drug development. It is also an ideal way to check a sample for contaminants before further processing.

Gas Chromatography-Infrared Spectroscopy (GC-IR) is another hybrid analytical technique similar to GC-MS. Instead of changing the first analytical method like LC-MS, GC-IR uses infrared spectroscopy to analyze GC-vaporized samples in the second half.

Infrared spectroscopes measure how the components in a sample absorb infrared light to identify them. That can reveal differences in substances their mass-to-charge ratios do not show. IR cannot determine molecules’ mass like MS can, but it can identify their chemical bonds, which MS cannot.

Another benefit of GC-IR is both halves of the analysis can happen simultaneously. GC-MS and LC-MS must separate a sample’s components then send them through MS, but GC-IR analyzes GC streams in real time. Consequently, it is a far faster process in most cases.

Liquid Chromatography-Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (LC-NMR) is a more niche hybrid approach. This method starts by separating sample components with LC, as LC-MS does. From there, an NMR spectroscope measures the subjects’ resonant frequencies.

LC-NMR is a highly versatile method. It can reveal components’ molecular structure, phase changes, solubility, polarity and more. It is also highly precise and can be fully automated. Considering the nation faces a shortage of roughly 25,000 laboratory workers, that automation potential is difficult to ignore.

Of course, LC-NMR has some downsides, too. Ongoing laboratory equipment shipping delays may make it difficult for some labs to acquire LC-NMR tools. The process is also slower than other hybrid approaches, limiting its practical usage in some labs.

Making the Most of Hybrid Techniques

As with non-hybrid analytical methods, hybrid techniques’ efficacy depends on their application. If you are considering adopting a hybrid approach, here is how you can maximize its benefits.

Choose the Right Combination

The first step in harnessing hybrid analytical techniques’ power is choosing the optimal method. Start by outlining your budget, workforce experience level, current processes and the kinds of samples you must analyze. Once you know this, it will be easier to determine which hybrid option suits your needs.

LC-NMR may be ideal for its high precision and versatility if a lab has the appropriate budget and an otherwise efficient workflow. Labs facing tighter time constraints should opt for a more efficient alternative, like GC-IR. GC-MS and LC-MS are better for less-specialized labs with less-experienced workers or smaller budgets.

Keep in mind some workflow changes can make up for things like hybrid systems’ inefficiency or expense. Using single-use biomedical tools instead of reusable ones can save money, as they have lower manufacturing and labor costs, and automating data entry can streamline workflows.

Consider More Complex Hybrids

Sometimes, combining hybrid techniques with additional analytical steps is the best solution. These more complex hybrids will be more costly and time consuming, but they will offer the most reliable results.

LC-MS is a good fit for more complex hybrids because it is non-destructive, cost effective and ideal for preparing samples for further work. You could send samples through GC-IR or LC-NMR after an initial LC-MS pass. The former would streamline the process while providing more information and the latter would offer the most in-depth analysis possible with widely available methods.

Seeking public-private partnerships can help offset the high costs of these complex hybrids. Federal funding for research and development in labs has risen for eight consecutive years, offering a promising opportunity for labs that meet the funding criteria.

Be Prepared to Adapt

It is also important to consider that your lab’s needs will likely change over time. New analytical technologies regularly emerge, new projects shift research focus and supply chain disruptions can worsen laboratory equipment shipping delays.

In light of these changes, labs should remain flexible. If a more expensive analytical solution offers the most benefits, be sure it is scalable and can fit in multiple workflows before investing in it. Remember to review emerging technologies before deciding to make the most up-to-date purchasing choices.

Similarly, labs should regularly review their efficiency metrics and compare them to new analytical methods. Failure to do so could leave you relying on techniques that no longer meet modern standards.

Hybrid Analytical Techniques Offer Precision and Reliability

Producing consistent, reliable and precise results is paramount for labs. You can achieve that through many different means, but choosing the proper analytical technique is a crucial first step.

Hybrid analytical techniques often provide the best solution for all three metrics. If your lab struggles to meet performance targets, a hybrid approach could be the answer you need.

Emily Newton is a technology and industrial journalist and the Editor in Chief of Revolutionized. She manages the sites publishing schedule, SEO optimization and content strategy. Emily enjoys writing and researching articles about how technology is changing every industry. When she isn’t working, Emily enjoys playing video games or curling up with a good book.