4.4 Article

An isomer-specific high-energy collision-induced dissociation MS/MS database for forensic applications: a proof-of-concept on chemical warfare agent markers

期刊

JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 46, 期 9, 页码 917-924

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jms.1970

关键词

HE CID; MS/MS database; nerve agents; alkylphosphonic acids; charge remote fragmentation

资金

  1. Public Service Department of Malaysia
  2. Swedish Ministry of Defence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spectra database search has become the most popular technique for the identification of unknown chemicals, minimizing the need for authentic reference chemicals. In the present study, an isomer-specific high-energy collision-induced dissociation (CID) MS/MS spectra database of 12 isomeric O-hexyl methylphosphonic acids (degradation markers of nerve agents) was created. Phosphonate anions were produced by the electrospray ionization of phosphonic acids or negative-ion chemical ionization of their fluorinated derivatives and were analysed in a hybrid magnetic-sector-time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometer. A centre-of-mass energy (E-com) of 65eV led to an optimal sequential carbon-carbon bond breakage, which was interpreted in terms of charge remote fragmentation. The proposed mechanism is discussed in comparison with the routinely used low-energy CID MS/MS. Even-mass (odd-electron) charge remote fragmentation ion series were diagnostic of the O-alkyl chain structure and can be used to interpret unknown spectra. Together with the odd-mass ion series, they formed highly reproducible, isomer-specific spectra that gave significantly higher database matches and probability factors (by 1.5 times) than did the EI MS spectra of the trimethylsilyl derivatives of the same isomers. In addition, ionization by negative-ion chemical ionization and electrospray ionization resulted in similar spectra, which further highlights the general potential of the high-energy CID MS/MS technique. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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