4.5 Article

A Study of Electrospray Ionization Emitters with Differing Geometries with Respect to Flow Rate and Electrospray Voltage

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MASS SPECTROMETRY
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages 2115-2124

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-011-0251-4

Keywords

Electrospray ionization; Etched open-tubular emitter; Polymeric emitter; Pulled tip emitter; Electrospray voltage; Flow rate; Reserpine

Funding

  1. WVU
  2. WVNano program
  3. NSF RII [EPS 0554328]
  4. WV EPSCoR Office
  5. WVU Research Corp.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performance of several electrospray ionization emitters with different orifice inside diameters (i.d.s), geometries, and materials are compared. The sample solution is delivered by pressure driven flow, and the electrospray ionization voltage and flow rate are varied systematically for each emitter investigated, while the signal intensity of a standard is measured. The emitters investigated include a series of emitters with a tapered outside diameters (o.d.) and unaltered i.d.s, a series of emitters with tapered o.d.s and i.d.s, an emitter with a monolithic frit and a tapered o.d., and an emitter fabricated from polypropylene. The results show that for the externally etched emitters, signal was nearly independent of i.d. and better ion utilization was achieved at lower flow rates. Furthermore, emitters with a 50 mu m i.d. and an etched o.d. produced about 1.5 times more signal than etched emitters with smaller i.d.s and about 3.5 times more signal than emitters with tapered inner and outer dimensions. Additionally, the work presented here has important implications for applications in which maximizing signal intensity and reducing frictional resistance to flow are necessary. Overall, the work provides an initial assessment of the critical parameters that contribute to maximizing the signal for electrospray ionization sources interfaced with pressure driven flows.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available