4.7 Article

Fluorescence spectroscopy of UV-MALDI matrices and implications of ionization mechanisms

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 141, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4898372

关键词

-

资金

  1. Thematic Research Program of the Academia Sinica, Taiwan [As-102-TP-A08]
  2. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC100-2113-M-011-026-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization (MALDI) has been widely used in the mass analysis of biomolecules; however, there are a lot of debates about the ionization mechanisms. Previous studies have indicated that S-1-S-1 annihilation might be a key process in the generation of primary ions. This study investigates S-1-S-1 annihilation by examining the time-resolved fluorescence spectra of 12 matrices. No S-1-S-1 annihilation was observed in six of these matrices (3-hydroxy-picolinic acid, 6-aza-2-thiothymine, 2,4-dihydroxy-acetophenone, 2,6-dihydroxy-acetophenone, 2,4,6-trihydroxy-acetophenone, and ferulic acid). We observed two matrix molecules reacting in an electronically excited state (S-1) in five of these matrices (2,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid, alpha-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid, 2,5-dihydroxy-acetophenone, 2,3-dihydroxybenzoic acid, and 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid), and S-1-S-1 annihilation was a possible reaction. Among these five matrices, no S-1-S-1 annihilation was observed for 2,3-dihydroxybenzoic acid in typical peak power region of nanosecond laser pulses in MALDI, but a very small value of reaction rate constant was observed only in the high peak power region. The excited-state lifetime of sinapinic acid was too short to determine whether the molecules reacted in an electronically excited state. No correlation was observed between the ion generation efficiency of MALDI and S-1-S-1 annihilation. The results indicate that the proposal of S-1-S-1 annihilation is unnecessary in MALDI and energy pooling model for MALDI ionization mechanism has to be modified. (C) 2014 AIP Publishing LLC.

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

4.7
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