4.3 Article

Comparing the performance of hyperbolic and circular rod quadrupole mass spectrometers with applied higher order auxiliary excitation

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijms.2012.03.008

关键词

Quadrupole mass spectrometer; Auxiliary excitation; Spaceborne mass spectrometry

资金

  1. NASA [NNX08AO05G, NNX09AL50H]
  2. NASA [96912, NNX09AL50H, NNX08AO05G, 115866] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work applies higher order auxiliary excitation techniques to two types of quadrupole mass spectrometers (QMSs): commercial systems and spaceborne instruments. The operational settings of a circular rod geometry commercial system and an engineering test-bed for a hyperbolic rod geometry spaceborne instrument were matched, with the relative performance of each sensor characterized with and without applied excitation using isotopic measurements of Kr+. Each instrument was operated at the limit of the test electronics to determine the effect of auxiliary excitation on extending instrument capabilities. For the circular rod sensor, with applied excitation, a doubling of the mass resolution at 1% of peak transmission resulted from the elimination of the low-mass side peak tail typical of such rod geometries. The mass peak stability and ion rejection efficiency were also increased by factors of 2 and 10, respectively, with voltage scan lines passing through the center of stability islands formed from auxiliary excitation. Auxiliary excitation also resulted in factors of 6 and 2 in peak stability and ion rejection efficiency, respectively, for the hyperbolic rod sensor. These results not only have significant implications for the use of circular rod quadrupoles with applied excitation as a suitable replacement for traditional hyperbolic rod sensors, but also for extending the capabilities of existing hyperbolic rod QMSs for the next generation of spaceborne instruments and low-mass commercial systems. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据