adhered to each other, or show poor thermal stability, short lifetimes, high carry-over, and high phase bleed [8]. In the past few decades, new materials for SPME coatings have been explored. These include mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) [9], molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) [10], metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) [11], ionic liquids (ILs) [12], metal oxides [13; 14], carbon nanotubes [15], graphene [16; 17], and conducting polymers [13]. Our group has demonstrated the use of porous, sputtered silicon coatings for SPME [18; 19; 20]. These sputtered coatings have very high surface areas and allow subsequent functionalization with organic thin films. These coatings have shown promising results in the analysis of amines, alcohols, aldehydes, and PAHs. Sputtering, which remains largely unexplored in chromatography and SPME, is very widely used in industry, including in semiconductor manufacturing, to produce microelectronic devices, optical materials, biochip arrays, sensors, and catalysts [21; 22]. Sputtering is a type of physical vapor deposition [18]. Sputter processes use solid (often elemental) targets as a source, where atoms are ejected from the target by bombardment with gas ions in a vacuum. The ejected atoms strike/coat a substrate. At oblique angles of deposition, shadowing may lead to the production of porous coatings with columnar microstructures and high capacities for analytes [23; 24; 25]. Carbon-based materials have played an important role in SPME. Among these, porous carbon [26], mesoporous graphene aerogels [27], carbon spheres [28; 29], graphene [17], and carbon nanotubes [15] have been of particular interest for chromatographers. These coatings are mostly used for the analysis of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Despite the recent progress in SPME materials, coatings, and configurations, very little has been done to systematically benchmark these advances over a wide range of chemical classes. For over six decades now, the performance of chromatographic systems has been evaluated with standardized test mixes such as those developed by [PERSON] [30; 31], [PERSON] [32], and [PERSON] [33]. However, this degree of systematic evaluation of SPME devices through test mixes appears to be absent from the literature; relatively little effort has been made to develop appropriate test mixes for SPME. Indeed, the majority of SPME manuscripts have only considered one or two compound classes. For example, [PERSON] and [PERSON] only focused on alkanes [34]; [PERSON] et al. [35], [PERSON] et al. [19], and [PERSON] et al. [20] only evaluated PAHs in water and baby formula; [PERSON] et al. only worked on terpen in cannabis matrices [36]; [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al. only tested a few aromatics [37; 38]. Of course, there are SPME studies that consider multiple classes of compounds, but they are generally application specific. For example, [PERSON] et al. evaluated esters, fatty acids, alcohols, phenols, terpenoids/ketones/aldehydes, and nitrocyclic compounds for the aroma profiling of beer [39], and [PERSON] et al. looked at alkanes, aromatics, aldehydes, sulfides, and alcohols for microbiological VOC profiling [40]. An extensive literature search only produces a few SPME studies that are non-application specific and that provide a systematic evaluation of SPME devices spanning several chemical classes. Most notably, [PERSON] et al. developed standard gas generation vials for modified McReynolds standards including benzene, 2-pentanone, 1-nitropropane, pyridine, 1-pentanol, octane, dodecane, and hexadecane [41]. However, this compound list is relatively short and lacks functional group diversity, i.e., three of the eight compounds are aliphatic alkanes. The reasons for a lack of non-application-specific SPME studies bridging across several chemical classes/functional groups is not clear. It may be that the industries and markets served by SPME do not necessitate broad coverage of chemical classes in non-application-specific scenarios.