4.7 Article

Capillary electrophoresis-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry using uncoated fused-silica capillaries and alkaline buffer solution for the analysis of small carboxylic acids

Journal

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 507, Issue 2, Pages 191-198

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2003.11.047

Keywords

capillary electrophoresis/mass spectrometry; electrospray ionization; uncoated fused-silica capillary; carboxylic acids

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A simple and cost-effective capillary electrophoresis/mass spectrometric (CE/MS) method for the analysis of small carboxylic acids including succinate, malate, tartarate, maleinate and citrate, is described. All CE/MS experiments were performed with uncoated fused-silica capillaries and with alkaline volatile buffer solution (ammonium formate buffer, pH 10). Since sheath liquids have significant effects on the sensitivity in typical CE/MS applications, the effects of type and flow rate of the sheath liquids on the sensitivity of carboxylic acids were investigated. As the result, the best sensitivity was obtained with the alkaline sheath liquid (5 mM ammonium hydroxide in water/methanol (50/50, v/v) solution) at 6 mul min(-1). With the alkaline volatile buffer solution, sufficient electroosmotic flow (EOF) to carry all small carboxylic acids toward the cathode (MS side) was obtained, although all analytes had different electrophoretic mobilities toward the anode (the CE inlet). Taking advantage of the relatively higher EOF velocity, several carboxylic acids could be detected by MS in ESI-negative mode with a short analysis time. The R.S.D. values (n = 5) for the migration time and the peak area of the carboxylic acids tested were less than 0.6 and 4.2%, respectively. The method was applied to the CE/MS analysis of carboxylic acids in apple juice to demonstrate the applicability to real samples. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available