Chromatography remains central to many mass spectrometry workflows, but interest in chromatography-free mass spectrometry continues to grow in routine analysis. In a conversation with David Oliva of Concentrating on Chromatography, Jeffrey Zonderman, Senior Vice President, Bruker Applied Mass Spectrometry, outlines where direct analysis in real time (DART) may help laboratories simplify workflows, reduce operating costs, and increase throughput.
He frames chromatography as a technology that helped mass spectrometry expand into a wide range of applications, including toxicology, clinical analysis, food and beverage testing, environmental analysis, proteomics, and metabolomics. At the same time, he describes chromatography as one of the more complex and costly parts of many routine mass spectrometry workflows.
Why Chromatography-Free Mass Spectrometry Is Drawing Interest
Zonderman points to a familiar problem in routine labs: chromatography often demands the most service, expertise, and maintenance. It also adds cost through consumables, solvents, waste handling, and instrument support.
He argues that chromatography-free mass spectrometry has gained attention because it can address those pressure points in the right applications. In his view, the appeal of DART lies in faster analysis, lower solvent use, less hazardous waste, and reduced dependence on specialized chromatography expertise.
He stresses that chromatography-free workflows will not replace every chromatography method. Instead, he positions them as a practical option for selected screening and quantitative assays where full chromatographic separation may not be necessary.
Where DART Mass Spectrometry Fits in Routine Workflows
Zonderman describes DART as a strong fit for routine, high-throughput environments focused on speed, cost per sample, robustness, and ease of operation. He asserts that those needs shaped the original push behind the technology and continue to define its relevance today.
He also notes that many laboratories still assume chromatography is required to remove matrix effects and support reliable analysis. In response, he emphasizes that some workflows can achieve the needed performance through a combination of simple sample preparation, mass spectrometric selectivity, and DART-based analysis.
That does not mean sample preparation disappears. Zonderman makes clear that biological and other complex matrices still require preparation steps. The difference is that laboratories may be able to remove the LC step in some assays while keeping the workflow robust enough for routine use.
Where Chromatography Still Remains Essential
Zonderman draws a sharp distinction between applications that require extensive separation and those that do not. He cites large multi-analyte pesticide testing in food or drinking water, as well as complex metabolomics workflows, as clear cases where chromatography remains essential.
He sees the opportunity elsewhere. Once a discovery workflow identifies a smaller set of target molecules or biomarkers, a laboratory may be able to move those targets into a faster routine assay that does not rely on chromatography. In that setting, chromatography-free mass spectrometry becomes more attractive.
His point is not that chromatography is fading. It is that laboratories should evaluate whether they still need it in every routine assay.
Forensic Labs Highlight the Need for Faster Analysis
Zonderman points to forensics as a major use case. He describes rising case volumes, large sample backlogs, and the steady appearance of new psychoactive substances as major analytical challenges for forensic labs.
He argues that DART can help labs process bulk drug samples more quickly while maintaining the molecular specificity of mass spectrometry. He also highlights its flexibility. When a new substance appears and no established chromatography method or immunoassay exists, a chromatography-free approach may let labs begin analysis much faster.
He links that flexibility to growing interest from crime labs, federal agencies, and collaborators such as NIST. He also points to mobile and field-based testing as an area where chromatography-free mass spectrometry could extend the reach of lab-quality analysis.
Sustainability and Cost of Ownership Shape the Case
Sustainability emerged as one of the strongest themes in the discussion. Zonderman argues that removing LC from suitable high-volume workflows can sharply reduce solvent consumption and hazardous waste generation. He connects that change to both environmental goals and everyday lab economics.
He also frames the issue in terms of total cost of ownership. For routine markets, he suggests that labs increasingly care less about instrument brand alone and more about whether a workflow can run reliably, economically, and at scale.
That broader workflow view also includes kits, validated methods, and more integrated support. Zonderman describes those elements as important to making chromatography-free mass spectrometry practical in routine settings.
What Comes Next for Chromatography-Free Mass Spectrometry
Looking ahead, Zonderman expects the biggest impact in drug testing, therapeutic drug monitoring, and contaminant analysis. He also points to ion mobility as a complementary technology that could strengthen fast, high-throughput workflows by adding another dimension of separation.
His overall message was measured. Chromatography remains critical for many complex analytical problems. But in routine applications where labs need speed, lower cost, simpler operation, and less solvent use, chromatography-free mass spectrometry has started to build a stronger case.
For laboratories under pressure to increase throughput and reduce complexity, that shift could prove significant.
Learn More:
- Explore the Concentrating On Chromatography podcast to dive into the frontiers of chromatography, mass spectrometry, and sample preparation with host David Oliva.
Connect with Jeff:
- LinkedIn: Jeff Zonderman
