Gas chromatography (GC) scan techniques have been very useful in profiling volatile and semi-volatile constituents of cigarette tobaccos before and after fabrication and packaging. Such scan techniques are even more valuable when the chromatographic profiles can be compared with those of tobaccos known to have been manufactured and packaged correctly. However, when such techniques have been applied to e-liquids, the results have been less useful as they are often dominated by the major components of the e-liquids: glycerol (VG) and propylene glycol (PG). Constituents of low volatility may also be missed. Consequently, we evaluated liquid chromatography (LC) using three different Cogent TYPE-C™ Silica columns (Bidentate C18, Phenyl Hydride, Amide; 250 mm x 4.6 mm, 1 mL/min flow rate) using acetonitrile-water mobile phases (isocratic or binary gradient) with UV detection at several wavelengths (including 195 nm for analytes that do not have absorptivity at higher wavelengths). While satisfactory chromatographic separations were obtained under ANP, NP, or RP conditions, scan techniques require a “product map” of analytes that are usually present in properly formulated e-liquids as well as analytes that have been reported in e-liquids that do not perform as expected. Over 100 formulations have been evaluated including commercial e-liquids, e-liquids formulated from commercial flavor concentrates and nicotine solutions (in PG or VG), as well as e-liquids formulated in-house from flavors and ingredients sold for other purposes. Substances known to degrade e-liquid performance were added to known good e-liquids at approximately the reported amounts to show that the LC approach was valid and could be done with readily available commercial LC instrumentation.