“…The use of AIMS directly after sample collection by media (Table 2 ), such as swabs (Bouslimani et al, 2015 ; Sarkar et al, 2021 ) or filter paper (Motoyama & Kihara, 2017 ), skips the need for solvent extraction; whereas, direct skin analysis, using a harmless ionisation technique for skin, allows real-time in-situ analysis of sebum, potentially capturing metabolites in their native, localised environments to low detection limits (Cho et al, 2021 ; Cooks et al, 2015 ; Huang et al, 2010 , 2011 ). Both AIMS approaches allow a high sample throughput (≤ 5 s from collection to data generation (Cho et al, 2021 ; Zhao et al, 2008 ) but do not allow molecular separation prior to detection. Considering the successes of AIMS for biological skin analyses in forensic science (Justes et al, 2007 ; Zhao et al, 2008 ), drug development (Cho et al, 2022 ; Katona et al, 2011 ), and cosmetic science (Motoyama & Kihara 2017 ), as well as continuous developments regarding probes (Fatou et al, 2018 ; Meisenbichler et al, 2020 ; Shamraeva et al, 2022 ) and portable mass spectrometers (Burns et al, 2022 ; Hendricks et al, 2014 ; Li et al, 2014 ; Mulligan et al, 2006 ), this is an exciting area to watch.…”