<p><strong>In the week from September 14, the following webinars await you in the field of atomic and molecular spectroscopy and spectrometry</strong></p><blockquote><h4><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://icpms.labrulez.com/webinars"><strong>👉 DETAILS AND REGISTRATION IN THE WEBINARS SECTION</strong></a></h4><p><strong>👉 Search and filter in the largest global database</strong> with over <strong>6 000 GC, LC, MS and spectroscopy webinars</strong>.</p></blockquote><h5><strong>1. Technology Networks: Automating Microplastic Analysis To Support Water Quality Research</strong></h5><ul><li>Tu, 15.9.2026 16:00 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6471">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Join this webinar on automated microplastic analysis and learn how automated sample preparation can improve workflow efficiency and support water quality research.</p><h5><strong>2. C&amp;EN: Fast Track Closed-Loop Experimentation with AI-Driven Automation on Stuntman</strong></h5><ul><li>Tu, 15.9.2026 17:00 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6472">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Discover how the Stuntman platform integrates AI and laboratory automation to enable closed-loop experimentation and accelerate research and discovery workflows.</p><h5><strong>3. Agilent Technologies: ICP-OES Preventive Maintenance: What to Clean, How, and When</strong></h5><ul><li>Tu, 15.9.2026 21:30 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6413">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Learn key ICP-OES cleaning procedures and maintenance schedules to prevent signal drift, instability, and unnecessary instrument downtime.</p><h5><strong>4. Bruker: From Pit to Port: XRF Solutions for Base Metal Mining Operations</strong></h5><ul><li>We, 16.9.2026 10:00 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6502">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Explore how EDXRF and WDXRF support base metal mining operations, from grade control and process monitoring to quality assurance across the production chain.</p><h5><strong>5. Bruker: AI-Assisted Analysis of Viscoelasticity with AFM</strong></h5><ul><li>We, 16.9.2026 17:00 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6503">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Learn how machine learning and the ViscoDirect module accelerate AFM-based viscoelasticity analysis and cell nanorheology workflows.</p><h5><strong>6. Anton Paar: Extreme-Temperature Stability of MXenes Revealed by In-Situ High-Temperature XRD</strong></h5><ul><li>We, 16.9.2026 18:00 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6429">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Discover how non-ambient XRD chambers enable in-situ characterization of MXene structural dynamics at temperatures up to 1200 °C.</p><h5><strong>7. Agilent Technologies: Accelerating Biopharmaceutical Development with the Agilent Cary 3500 UV-Vis Spectrophotometer</strong></h5><ul><li>Th, 17.9.2026 07:30 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6507">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Explore how the Agilent Cary 3500 UV-Vis spectrophotometer supports biopharmaceutical characterization from development through routine quality control.</p><h5><strong>8. Agilent Technologies: Landscape of Standardization and Overview of Analytical Techniques Used for Microplastics Analysis</strong></h5><ul><li>Th, 17.9.2026 11:00 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6539">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Explore current trends in microplastics analysis, including analytical standards, molecular spectroscopy, Py-GC/MS, TD-GC/MS, and future developments for reliable characterization.</p><h5><strong>9. SelectScience: Master EV profiling with Leprechaun – A case study from North Texas Eye Research Institute</strong></h5><ul><li>Th, 17.9.2026 17:00 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6506">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Explore advanced extracellular vesicle profiling and discover how the Leprechaun platform streamlines EV characterization for research applications.</p><h5><strong>10. Agilent Technologies: Analysis of High Purity Titanium Using an Agilent 9500 ICP-QQQ</strong></h5><ul><li>Th, 17.9.2026 20:00 CEST</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/all/webinar/6414">Registration</a></li></ul><p>Learn how the Agilent 9500 ICP-QQQ overcomes titanium matrix effects to enable trace impurity analysis in high-purity titanium.</p>

Webinars LabRulezICPMS Week 38/2026

<p><span><strong>This study compares loss-on-ignition, acid decarbonation, and combustion elemental analysis for measuring organic carbon in sediments using certified reference materials and real samples. Loss-on-ignition conversions were inaccurate, while acid washing before elemental analysis caused significant organic carbon loss and poor precision.</strong></span></p><p><span>Combustion pretreatment followed by elemental analysis provided accurate and precise organic and inorganic carbon measurements, confirmed by temperature-dependent combustion. Across more than 150 intertidal sediment samples, acid decarbonation underestimated organic carbon by 37% ± 8%, supporting combustion-based elemental analysis as the preferred approach for reliable sediment carbon determination.</span></p><blockquote><h4><strong>The original article</strong></h4><h4><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#s0055"><strong>Comparing loss-on-ignition, acid decarbonation and combustion elemental analysis for measuring organic carbon concentrations – recommendations for best practice</strong></a></h4><p>Robert B. Sparkes, Stuart A. Rae, Lucy McMahon, Hannah L. Mossman, David McKendry, Clare E. Dean, Graham Tinsley, Frances Fowden, Connor J. Grisdale, Hafiza Begum, Holly Hope, Charlotte McEnhill, Samuel O’Boyle, Nawal Sohail, Marvyn Wachira, Rachel M. Dunk</p><p>Organic Geochemistry, Volume 218, 2026, 105215</p><div><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2026.105215"><span>10.1016/j.orggeochem.2026.105215</span></a></div><h6>licensed under <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><strong>CC-BY 4.0</strong></a></h6></blockquote><p><strong>Selected sections from the article follow. Formats and hyperlinks were adapted from the original.</strong></p><div><div><div><div><div><p>Environmental and Earth scientists frequently require measurements of carbon contents, including both the total carbon concentration (TC) and the fractions contributed by carbon from organic matter (organic carbon; OC) and carbonate minerals (inorganic carbon; IC; <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0025"><span>Bendle et al., 2009</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0220"><span>Radabaugh et al., 2018</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0230"><span>Saderne et al., 2019</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0240"><span>Scheingross et al., 2019</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0260"><span>Smeaton et al., 2021</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0295"><span>Vonk et al., 2012</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0315"><span>Wood et al., 2021</span></a>).</p><p>Accurate, precise, and affordable carbon concentration measurements are critical to the drive towards net-zero emissions, which requires monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon burial and release from an array of global environments (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0210"><span>Post et al., 2001</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0265"><span>Smith, 2004</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0270"><span>Smith et al., 2020</span></a>). Carbon concentration measurements also underpin further analyses (e.g. normalising the concentration of individual biomarker compounds against the total organic carbon concentration, calculating elemental carbon to nitrogen ratios (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0290"><span>van Dongen et al., 2008</span></a>), determining the correct sample load for isotope ratio measurements). Despite carbon concentration measurements being ubiquitous throughout multiple disciplines there is no standard approach for making these, especially determining the organic component of the sedimentary carbon (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0080"><span>Fest et al., 2022</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0320"><span>Young et al., 2018</span></a>). Different disciplines have often generated their own consensus approach, which may not align with studies from another field, even those working on similar samples and asking similar questions (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0070"><span>Farmer et al., 2014</span></a>). Use of an agreed standard measurement protocol for carbon concentrations, or understanding the agreement/variability between protocols, is vital for regulatory monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), such as the ongoing development of carbon offsetting standards that, if implemented robustly, could provide real-world benefits to climate mitigation (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0035"><span>Bonn et al., 2014</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0045"><span>Burden et al., 2023</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0105"><span>Guizar-Coutiño et al., 2022</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0190"><span>Needelman et al., 2018</span></a>, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0205"><span>Pan et al., 2022</span></a>). Determining a standardised, verified approach to carbon measurement is important for those performing MRV, who may not have access to advanced and/or expensive analytical instrumentation.</p><p>This study compares three common methods for quantifying the total and organic carbon concentrations in sedimentary samples: i) loss-on-ignition, ii) elemental analysis combined with acid decarbonation, and iii) elemental analysis combined with organic matter combustion. The comparison focuses on assessing the accuracy, precision, and repeatability of each method, identifying their respective strengths and weaknesses, and independently confirming findings via a fourth method (temperature dependent combustion and infrared CO<sub>2</sub> measurement) to provide recommendations for best practice. A summary review of these methods is provided below.</p><h4><strong>2. Materials and methods</strong></h4><h5><strong>2.3. Independent testing of reference materials via TDC</strong></h5><p>Standards were analysed by the supplier (Elemental Microanalysis Ltd, UK) as part of the certification process: 15/30 elemental analysis measurements gave expected values of TC, OC and IC and the uncertainty for TC, following ISO/IEC17025. These values were independently checked using an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://labrulez.com/en-us/icpms/library?mainauthorItems=16&amp;search=Soli+TOC"><strong>Elementar SoliTOC cube</strong></a> instrument at the instrument manufacturer’s headquarters (Elementar Analysensysteme, Hanau, Germany), which used the TDC method. Two combustion ramps were applied, first a two-step OC and IC determination at 500 °C and 900 °C, and then a three-step programme at 400 °C and 600 °C for easily-combustible and residual OC fractions and 900 °C for IC, with three repeat measurements of each. The SoliTOC cube instrument also analysed the agricultural soil sample, again making three repeat measurements of both the two-step and three-step temperature dependent combustion protocols (see Supplementary Table 3).</p><h5><strong>2.5. Elemental analysis</strong></h5><p>Total carbon concentrations were measured following the protocol described in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0180"><span>Mossman et al. (2022)</span></a>. 20&nbsp;mg of either untreated or pre-treated sample was weighed into tin capsules (Elemental Microanalysis Ltd.) and analysed for carbon concentrations using a Vario EL cube elemental analyser (Elementar Ltd.). Before each analytical run, the instrument was cleaned using three blanks without oxygen and seven blanks with oxygen, and calibrated using five analyses of up to 14&nbsp;mg ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) standard (Elemental Microanalysis Ltd.) and three analyses of an independent Soil Standard (Clay) CRM, acquired separately to the Soil Standard (Clay) CRM used to create analytical samples for this study (Elemental Microanalysis Ltd.). Three analyses of the EDTA calibration standard were repeated after every twenty samples. Long-term drift was monitored by repeated measurements of an internal laboratory standard sample, which has been analysed since 2015. Over the course of 65 measurements across 10 instrument runs for this study the laboratory standard showed no systematic drift.</p><h4><strong>3. Results and discussion</strong></h4><h5><strong>3.1. Testing of certified reference materials (CRMs) using temperature dependent combustion (TDC)</strong></h5><p>Both two-step and three-step TDC protocols consistently measured carbon contents close to but slightly below the supplier-certified values (see <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#f0005"><span>Fig. 1</span></a>). For Soil Standard (Clay), the TDC instrument under-estimated OC by 0.10&nbsp;wt% (two-step) and 0.14&nbsp;wt% (three-step) and IC by 0.15&nbsp;wt% (two-step) and 0.087&nbsp;wt% (three-step). For Soil Standard (Peaty) the TDC instrument underestimated OC by 0.26&nbsp;wt% (two-step) and 0.34&nbsp;wt% (three-step), and IC by 0.021&nbsp;wt% (two-step) and 0.090&nbsp;wt% (three-step). Relative differences for OC are small, 5.1 – 7.0% for Clay and just 1.7 – 2.2% for Peaty, but higher for IC due to the small amount of IC present in the standards (25 – 44% for Clay, 7.0 – 30% for Peaty).</p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Organic_Geochemistry_Volume_218_2026_105215_Fig_1_Comparison_of_organic_carbon_and_inorganic_carbon_measurements_on_two_certified_reference_materials_using_four_methods_31537717b3.jpg" alt="Organic Geochemistry, Volume 218, 2026, 105215: Fig. 1. Comparison of organic carbon and inorganic carbon measurements on two certified reference materials using four methods. Upper panel is Soil Standard (Clay) and lower panel Soil Standard (Peaty). Yellow diamonds show the certified value (Elemental Microanalysis Ltd) with manufacturer stated uncertainty in total carbon used as error bars for OC and IC (n = 30). White and grey symbols represent Loss-on-Ignition results using four different organic matter to organic carbon conversion equations (grey sqaures use the “van Bemmelen” scaling factor (Pribyl, 2010), grey circles the Craft et al. (1991) factor, white diamonds the Ouyang and Lee (2020) equation and white circles the Smeaton et al. (2022) equation. IC values for all LoI results use the C/CO2 mass fraction (Wang et al., 2011). Blue circles show the acid decarbonation and elemental analysis protocol, orange circles the combustion and elemental analysis protocol. Green and purple circles show mean results from temperature dependent combustion method (2-step and 3-step protocols respectively). Error bars represent one standard deviation after multiple measurements (n = 2 to n = 4). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Organic_Geochemistry_Volume_218_2026_105215_Fig_1_Comparison_of_organic_carbon_and_inorganic_carbon_measurements_on_two_certified_reference_materials_using_four_methods_31537717b3.jpg 116w," sizes="100vw" width="2756" height="3698"></p><h5><strong>3.4. Reproducibility tests</strong></h5><p>Having shown that combustion coupled with elemental analysis was the most robust method for measuring OC in pure and diluted standards, the next experiment tested the reproducibility of these protocols over multiple implementations. A dried, ground agricultural soil sample was repeatedly analysed using each method (separate aliquots were measured using LoI at 500 °C and 800 °C, separate untreated aliquots were analysed via EA, separate aliquots were combusted at 500 °C and analysed via EA, and separate acid decarbonations were carried out prior to EA measurements). This required a large amount of starting material, more than was available in the CRMs. Independent external measurement of the soil sample using temperature dependent combustion (Elementar, Germany) gave mean OC&nbsp;=&nbsp;2.50&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.002&nbsp;wt% and IC&nbsp;=&nbsp;1.29&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.008&nbsp;wt% for combustion to 500 °C (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;3), whereas combustion to 600 °C gave OC&nbsp;=&nbsp;2.52&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.075 and IC&nbsp;=&nbsp;1.12&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.010&nbsp;wt% (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;3).</p><div><p>LoI showed differences in mean OC depending on the equation chosen (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#f0010"><span>Fig. 2</span></a>). The conversions of <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0050"><span>Craft et al. (1991)</span></a> and <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0200"><span>Ouyang and Lee (2020)</span></a> were similar to the independent measurements (2.90&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.05&nbsp;wt% and 2.60&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.07&nbsp;wt% respectively; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;9 for each), but the equations of <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#b0255"><span>Smeaton et al. (2022)</span></a> and van Bemmelen over-estimated OC (4.19&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.05 and 4.21&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.08&nbsp;wt% respectively; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;9 for each). IC estimates using the C/CO<sub>2</sub> mass fraction conversion were higher than the expected value (1.91&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.06&nbsp;wt%, n&nbsp;=&nbsp;9). Note that the relative standard deviation for OC<sub>LoI</sub> was&nbsp;∼&nbsp;1.8%, and 3.2% for IC<sub>LoI</sub>, showing acceptable run-to-run precision.</p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Organic_Geochemistry_Volume_218_2026_105215_Fig_2_Organic_and_inorganic_carbon_measurements_following_repeated_analysis_of_a_homogenised_soil_sample_via_multiple_methods_c5d62ece0b.jpg" alt="Organic Geochemistry, Volume 218, 2026, 105215: Fig. 2. Organic and inorganic carbon measurements following repeated analysis of a homogenised soil sample via multiple methods. Markers for each method are shown in the legend and are the same as Fig. 1. Small black circles and error bars show the mean and one standard deviation after multiple repetitions of each protocol (n = 9 for LoI, C-EA and AD-EA, n = 3 for TDC)." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Organic_Geochemistry_Volume_218_2026_105215_Fig_2_Organic_and_inorganic_carbon_measurements_following_repeated_analysis_of_a_homogenised_soil_sample_via_multiple_methods_c5d62ece0b.jpg 204w," sizes="100vw" width="2363" height="1815"></p><p>Since OC<sub>C-EA</sub> and IC<sub>AD-EA</sub> were calculated by subtraction from mean TC<sub>EA</sub>, all data from the C-EA and AD-EA methods plotted on a straight line in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638026000902#f0010"><span>Fig. 2</span></a>, representing OC&nbsp;+&nbsp;IC&nbsp;=&nbsp;TC. However, position and scatter along that line varied between the two pre-treatment techniques. OC<sub>C-EA</sub> clustered just higher than the independent measurements using TDC (2.60&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.03&nbsp;wt%, n&nbsp;=&nbsp;9). Propagating the errors in TC and IC gave a combined error estimate of&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.1&nbsp;wt% for the repeated OC<sub>C-EA</sub> measurements. IC<sub>C-EA</sub> was also close to but slightly higher than the TCD results, 1.35&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.03&nbsp;wt%. AD-EA, however, gave mean OC values of 2.00&nbsp;±&nbsp;0.12&nbsp;wt% (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;9) which was more variable run-to-run than the other methods and gave a significantly (p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.0001) lower mean OC value than the TCD results. Once again, acid decarbonation results suggested that a large amount of organic matter was lost during the acid treatment, tested further in the next section.</p></div><h4><strong>4.3. Conclusions</strong></h4><p>An accurate, precise, efficient, and standardised method for measuring total, organic and inorganic carbon contents of sediment samples is critical for both scientific research and environmental monitoring and reporting and verification. We rigorously tested three methods for measuring carbon contents in soils and intertidal sediments, using certified reference materials and&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;150 sediment samples. Loss-on-ignition (LoI) is cheap and easy but showed moderate run-to-run variability and, without careful calibration, it is not accurate.</p><p>Elemental analysis (EA) is an accurate and precise method for total carbon (TC) analysis. Measuring organic and inorganic carbon via EA requires pre-treatment of the sample, and this study tested both acid decarbonation and combustion preparation techniques. Acid decarbonation led to significant and variable organic carbon loss, meaning that true organic carbon concentrations are likely higher than those measured following acidification. Combustion pre-treatment was shown to efficiently remove organic matter, leading to accurate and precise results, and we would recommend making organic carbon measurements in this way.</p></div></div></div></div></div>

Comparing loss-on-ignition, acid decarbonation and combustion elemental analysis for measuring organic carbon concentrations – recommendations for best practice

<p><strong>Wiley, a global leader in authoritative content and research intelligence, today announced the launch of its spectral analysis application programming interface (API) portfolio, providing users with a new, faster way to access its trusted spectral data, analytical algorithms, and predictive models—within their own workflows.</strong></p><p>Wiley has one of the most comprehensive and trusted collections of scientific reference databases in the world, relied upon as a gold standard for identifying unknown chemical compounds by laboratories, instrument vendors, and software platforms across pharmaceuticals, forensics, environmental science, chemicals, food, materials, and other fields. The new portfolio extends the data and tools into modern, API-driven environments—allowing users to integrate high-quality spectral intelligence directly into their own systems and workflows.</p><p>As sample volumes grow and lab workflows become more automated and software-driven, identifying and verifying compounds quickly and reliably becomes even more critical. The <strong>new API portfolio</strong> meets that need directly, giving labs and platforms a faster way to complete the process, whether catching a quality issue on a production line or identifying an unknown compound in the field. The result is less manual effort, faster analysis, and more confidence in the answer.</p><p>The launch builds on Wiley's mission to transform knowledge into actionable intelligence for corporate and academic researchers around the world.</p><p>"<i>Speed matters when you're trying to identify an unknown substance; a delayed analysis can mean an assembly line sitting idle or a forensic lab holding up a case,</i>” said Armughan Rafat, Wiley senior vice president and chief AI and data services officer. “<i>We've spent decades building the reference data this industry trusts. Now, by making that spectral data and analytical intelligence available through APIs, we're setting the standard for how labs and vendors turn unknowns into answers faster and at scale.</i>"</p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Wiley_API_spectral_search_5bfcb1dd9b.png" alt="Wiley: spectral analysis API" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Wiley_API_spectral_search_5bfcb1dd9b.png 128w," sizes="100vw" width="802" height="977"></p><h5><strong>The API portfolio launches with four core capabilities:</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Spectral Database Search API </strong>– Query Wiley’s comprehensive reference collections for rapid compound identification.</li><li><strong>Spectrum-Structure Validation API</strong> – Confirm proposed chemical structures against experimental spectral data.</li><li><strong>Compound Classification API</strong> – Classify unknown substances, including drugs, based on compound class.</li><li><strong>Spectra Prediction API </strong>– Generate predicted spectra to support research, method development, and validation.</li></ul><p>Unlike fragmented in-house databases or instrument-specific solutions, these APIs offer a continuously curated, vendor-neutral foundation that supports multi-technique workflows, regulatory compliance, and cross-platform interoperability. As a result, laboratories can increase throughput, minimize downtime, and protect the value of the instrumentation and data in which they've already invested.</p><h4><strong>Spectral Databases &amp; APIs</strong></h4><p>Spectral databases contain unique molecular “fingerprints” of substances captured through analytical techniques such as <strong>infrared (IR), mass spectrometry (MS), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and Raman spectroscopy</strong>. By comparing experimental spectra against validated reference data, researchers can accurately identify unknown compounds across a wide range of applications.</p><p>An API is a common way for computer systems, from lab instruments to software platforms, to request information from one another and get an answer back automatically.</p><blockquote><p><strong>For more information about the Wiley spectral analysis API portfolio, please</strong> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://sciencesolutions.wiley.com/spectral-analysis-apis/"><strong>visit this website</strong></a></p></blockquote><h4><strong>About Wiley</strong></h4><p>Wiley is a global leader in authoritative content and research intelligence for the advancement of scientific discovery, innovation, and learning. With more than 200 years at the center of the scholarly ecosystem, Wiley combines trusted publishing heritage with AI-powered platforms to transform how knowledge is discovered, accessed, and applied. From individual researchers and students to Fortune 500 R&amp;D teams, Wiley enables the transformation of scientific breakthroughs into real-world impact. From knowledge to impact—Wiley is redefining what's possible in science and learning.&nbsp;</p>

Wiley Launches Its First Spectral Analysis API Portfolio

Article

Product

Webinars

Scientific article

Science and research

Software

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

For over 200 years we have been helping people and organizations develop the skills and knowledge they need to succeed.
We develop digital education, learning, assessment, and certification solutions to help universities, businesses, and individuals move between education and employment and achieve their ambitions.

Wiley

Heavy Metals Screening (As, Cd, Pb, Hg)

Screening of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in samples using Shimadzu EDX fluorescence spectrometry.

<p><strong>The Heavy Metals Screening is a standalone laboratory test designed to detect the presence of selected heavy metals in a sample.</strong></p><p>The standard screening covers arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and mercury (Hg). Other metals may be tested upon request.</p><h4><strong>About the Analyzed Metals</strong></h4><p>Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury are toxic elements that may occur as contaminants in raw materials, finished products, supplements, pharmaceuticals, and other sample types.</p><p>Their presence can be relevant for quality control and safety assessment, especially when contamination may arise from raw materials, manufacturing, handling, or storage.</p><h4><strong>Key Features</strong></h4><ul><li>Standalone screening for selected heavy metals</li><li>Target metals: arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and mercury (Hg)</li><li>Analysis using Shimadzu EDX fluorescence spectrometry</li><li>Suitable for tablets, capsules, liquid solutions, raw materials, and vials</li><li>Other metals can be tested upon request</li><li>Minimum sample amount of 1 tablet/capsule, 1 ml solution, 200 mg raw material, or 1 vial</li><li>Average turnaround time of 7 business days</li></ul><h4><strong>Analysis Parameters</strong></h4><ul><li><strong>Target metals: </strong>As, Cd, Pb, Hg</li><li><strong>Testing method: </strong>Shimadzu EDX fluorescence spectrometer</li><li><strong>Amount of sample required: </strong>1 tablet/capsule, 1 ml solution, 200 mg raw material, or 1 vial</li><li><strong>Average turnaround time: </strong>7 business days</li></ul><blockquote><p><strong>Important Notice</strong></p><ul><li>The standard screening covers arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury only.</li><li>If screening for other metals is required, this should be requested separately before analysis.</li></ul></blockquote><h4><strong>Optional Additional Analyses</strong></h4><p>The following optional laboratory services are available:</p><ul><li>Additional Laboratory Report</li></ul>

Products focused on X-ray - page 1

Related content

Wiley Launches Its First Spectral Analysis API Portfolio

Comparing loss-on-ignition, acid decarbonation and combustion elemental analysis for measuring organic carbon concentrations – recommendations for best practice

Webinars LabRulezICPMS Week 38/2026