4.4 Article

Trace level impurity method development with high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry: systematic study of factors affecting the performance

Journal

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 181-193

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.3844

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For the determination of trace level impurities, analytical chemists are confronted with complex mixtures and difficult separations. New technologies such as high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) have been developed to make their work easier; however, efficient method development and troubleshooting can be quite challenging if little prior knowledge of the factors or their settings is available. We present the results of an investigation performed in order to obtain a better understanding of the FAIMS technology. The influence of eight factors (polarity of dispersion voltage, outer bias voltage, total gas flow rate, composition of the carrier gas (e.g. %He), outer electrode temperature, ratio between the temperatures, of the inner and outer electrodes, flow rate and composition of the make-up mobile phase) was assessed. Five types of responses were monitored: value of the compensation voltage (CV), intensity, width and asymmetry of the compensation voltage peak, and resolution between two peaks. Three types of studies were performed using different test mixtures and various ionisation modes to assess whether the same conclusions could be drawn across these conditions for a number of different types of compounds. To extract the maximum information from as few experiments as possible, a Design of Experiment (DoE) approach was used. The results presented in this work provide detailed information on the factors affecting FAIMS separations and therefore should enable the user to troubleshoot more effectively and to develop efficient methods. Copyright (C) 2008 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