4.7 Article

Adjusting mobility scales of ion mobility spectrometers using 2,6-DtBP as a reference compound

Journal

TALANTA
Volume 76, Issue 5, Pages 1218-1223

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2008.05.030

Keywords

IMS; time-of-flight; 2.6-DtBP; reference compound; instrument comparison

Funding

  1. Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes)
  2. Environics Ltd.
  3. Orion Pharma
  4. Paavo Ristola Consulting Engineers Ltd
  5. National Bureau of Investigation (Finland)
  6. HERC project Urban and rural air pollution-response of ecosystem and society (URPO)
  7. Finnish Defense Forces and industrial Research Fund at Tampere University of Technology
  8. Academy of Finland [109124]
  9. Academy of Finland (AKA) [109124, 109124] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Performance of several time-of-flight (TOF) type ion mobility spectrometers (IMS) was compared in a joint measurement campaign and their mobility scales were adjusted based on the measurements. A standard reference compound 2,6-di-tert butylpyridine (2,6-DtBP) Was used to Create a single peak ion mobility distribution with a known mobility value. The effective length of the drift tube of each device, considered here as an instrument constant, was determined based on the measurements. Sequentially, two multi-peaked test compounds, DMMP and DIMP, were used to verify the performance of the adjustment procedure in a wider mobility scale. By determining the effective drift tube lengths using 2,6-DtBR agreement between the devices was achieved. The determination of effective drift tube lengths according to standard reference compound was found to be a good method for instrument inter-comparison. The comparison procedure, its benefits and shortcomings as well as dependency on accuracy of literature value are discussed along with the results. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available