4.5 Article

Description of Gas-Phase Ion/Neutral Interactions in Differential Ion Mobility Spectrometry: CV Prediction Using Calibration Runs

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-014-0934-8

关键词

Differential ion mobility spectrometry; Gas phase modifier; Ion/neutral interactions; Compensation voltage; Prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differential ion mobility spectrometry (DMS) coupled to mass spectrometry is increasingly used in both quantitative analyses of biological samples and as a means of removing background interferences for enhanced selectivity and improved quality of mass spectra. However, DMS separation efficiency using dry inert gases often lacks the required selectivity to achieve baseline separation. Polar gas-phase modifiers such as alcohols are therefore frequently employed to improve selectivity via clustering/declustering processes. The choice of an optimal modifier currently relies on trial and error experiments, making method development a tedious activity. It was the goal of this study to establish a means of CV prediction for compounds using a homologous series of alcohols as gas-phase modifiers. This prediction was based on linear regression of compensation voltages of two calibration runs for the alcohols with the lowest and the highest molecular weights and readily available descriptors such as proton affinity and gas phase acidity of the modifier molecules. All experiments were performed on a commercial quadrupole linear ion trap mass spectrometer equipped with a DMS device between electrospray ionization source and entrance quadrupole lens. We evaluated our approach using a homologous series of 4-alkylbenzoic acids and a selection of 23 small molecules of high chemical diversity. Predicted CV values typically deviated from the experimentally determined values by less than 0.5 V. Several test compounds changed their ion mobility behavior for the investigated gas phase modifiers (e.g., from type B to type A) and thus could thus not be evaluated.

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

4.5
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