4.4 Article

Analysis of lipids with desorption atmospheric pressure photoionization-mass spectrometry (DAPPI-MS) and desorption electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (DESI-MS)

期刊

JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 611-619

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jms.2992

关键词

lipids; desorption ionization; ambient mass spectrometry; desorption electrospray ionization; desorption atmospheric pressure photoionization

资金

  1. Instrumentarium Foundation
  2. Finnish Cultural Foundation
  3. Academy of Finland [1251575, 1125758, 1255559, 1218150]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, the effect of spray solvent on the analysis of selected lipids including fatty acids, fat-soluble vitamins, triacylglycerols, steroids, phospholipids, and sphingolipids has been studied by two different ambient mass spectrometry (MS) methods, desorption electrospray ionization-MS (DESI-MS) and desorption atmospheric pressure photoionization-MS (DAPPI-MS). The ionization of the lipids with DESI and DAPPI was strongly dependent on the spray solvent. In most cases, the lipids were detected as protonated or deprotonated molecules; however, other ions were also formed, such as adduct ions (in DESI), [M-H](+) ions (in DESI and DAPPI), radical ions (in DAPPI), and abundant oxidation products (in DESI and DAPPI). DAPPI provided efficient desorption and ionization for neutral and less polar as well as for ionic lipids but caused extensive fragmentation for larger and more labile compounds because of a thermal desorption process. DESI was more suitable for the analysis of the large and labile lipids, but the ionization efficiency for less polar lipids was poor. Both methods were successfully applied to the direct analysis of lipids from pharmaceutical and food products. Although DESI and DAPPI provide efficient analysis of lipids, the multiple and largely unpredictable ionization reactions may set challenges for routine lipid analysis with these methods. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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