4.4 Article

The influence of electrospray ion source design on matrix effects

Journal

JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
Volume 47, Issue 7, Pages 875-884

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jms.3047

Keywords

LC-MS; MS; signal suppressions; source design; source geometry; postcolumn infusion; electrospray ionization

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Bonn, Germany) [AL 971/1-1]
  2. Joint Analytical Systems (JAS, Germany)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates to which extent the design of electrospray ion sources influences the susceptibility to matrix effects (MEs) in liquid chromatographytandem mass spectrometry (LCMS/MS). For this purpose, MEs were measured under comparable conditions (identical sample extracts, identical LC column, same chromatographic method and always positive ion mode) on four LCMS/MS instrument platforms. The instruments were combined with five electrospray ion sources, viz. Turbo Ion Spray, Turbo VTM Source, Standard ESI, Jet Stream ESI and Standard Z-Spray Source. The comparison of MEs could be made at all retention times because the method of permanent postcolumn infusion was applied. The MEs ascertained for 45 pesticides showed for each electrospray ion source the same pattern, i.e. the same number of characteristic signal suppressions at equivalent retention times in the chromatogram. The Turbo Ion Spray (off-axis geometry), Turbo VTM Source (orthogonal geometry) and the Standard Z-Spray Source (double orthogonal geometry) did not differ much in their susceptibility to MEs. The Jet Stream ESI (orthogonal geometry) reaches a higher sensitivity by an additional heated sheath gas, but suffers at the same time from significantly stronger signal suppressions than the comparable Standard ESI (orthogonal geometry) without sheath gas. No relation between source geometry and extent of signal suppression was found in this study. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available