Journal
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MASS SPECTROMETRY
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages 1833-1847Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-013-0724-8
Keywords
Ion mobility; Differential mobility analysis; Collision cross section; Gas molecule; Scattering; Ion induced dipole potential; Cluster ion
Funding
- NSF [CHE-1011810]
- Ramon Areces Foundation
- NSF
- Division Of Chemistry
- Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1011810] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
Ask authors/readers for more resources
To date, most collision cross section (CCS) predictions have invoked gas molecule impingement-reemission rules in which specular and elastic scattering of spherical gas molecules from rigid polyatomic surfaces are assumed. Although such predictions have been shown to agree well with CCSs measured in helium bath gas, a number of studies reveal that these predictions do not agree with CCSs for ions in diatomic gases, namely, air and molecular nitrogen. To further examine the validity of specular-elastic versus diffuse-inelastic scattering models, we measured the CCSs of positively charged metal iodide cluster ions of the form [MI](n)[M+](z), where M = Na, K, Rb, or Cs, n = 1 - 25, and z = 1 - 2. Measurements were made in air via differential mobility analysis mass spectrometry (DMA-MS). The CCSs measured are compared with specular-elastic as well as diffuse-inelastic scattering model predictions with candidate ion structures determined from density functional theory. It is found that predictions from diffuse-inelastic collision models agree well (within 5 %) with measurements from sodium iodide cluster ions, while specular-elastic collision model predictions are in better agreement with cesium iodide cluster ion measurements. The agreement with diffuse-inelastic and specular-elastic predictions decreases and increases, respectively, with increasing cation mass. However, even when diffuse-inelastic cluster ion predictions disagree with measurements, the disagreement is of a near-constant factor for all ions, indicating that a simple linear rescaling collapses predictions to measurements. Conversely, rescaling cannot be used to collapse specular-elastic predictions to measurements; hence, although the precise impingement reemission rules remain ambiguous, they are not specular-elastic.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available