4.5 Article

On the Ionization and Ion Transmission Efficiencies of Different ESI-MS Interfaces

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-014-0998-5

Keywords

Electrospray ionization; Nanoelectrospray; Ion transmission; Ionization efficiency; ESI emitter array

Funding

  1. NIH National Cancer Institute [1R33CA155252]
  2. General Medical Sciences [GM103493-12]
  3. Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
  4. Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research Genome Sciences Program under the Pan-omics project
  5. DOE [DE-AC05-76RLO01830]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The achievable sensitivity of electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) is largely determined by the ionization efficiency in the ESI source and ion transmission efficiency through the ESI-MS interface. These performance characteristics are difficult to evaluate and compare across multiple platforms as it is difficult to correlate electrical current measurements to actual analyte ions reaching the detector of a mass spectrometer. We present an effective method to evaluate the overall ion utilization efficiency of an ESI-MS interface by measuring the total gas-phase ion current transmitted through the interface and correlating it to the observed ion abundance measured in the corresponding mass spectrum. Using this method, we systematically studied the ion transmission and ionization efficiencies of different ESI-MS interface configurations, including a single emitter/single inlet capillary, single emitter/multi-inlet capillary, and a subambient pressure ionization with nanoelectrospray (SPIN) MS interface with a single emitter and an emitter array, respectively. Our experimental results indicate that the overall ion utilization efficiency of SPIN-MS interface configurations exceeds that of the inlet capillary-based ESI-MS interface configurations.

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