4.4 Article

Perturbations produced by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry in the speciation of aluminium(III)/1,6-dimethy1-4-hydroxy-3-pyridinecarboxylate aqueous solutions

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 868-874

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.4457

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) is very often employed to study metal/ligand equilibria in aqueous solution. However, the ionization process can introduce perturbations which affect the speciation results in an unpredictable way. It is necessary to identify these perturbations in order to correctly interpret the ESI-MS speciation results. Aluminium(III)/1,6-dimethy1-4-hydroxy-3-pyridinecarboxylate (DQ716) aqueous solutions at various pH were analysed by ESI-MS, and speciation results were compared with those obtained by equilibrium techniques. Differences observed were both qualitative and quantitative. The ESI-MS spectral changes due to different settings of the following instrumental parameters were analyzed: the solution flow rate (F(S)), the nebulizer gas flow rate (F(G)), the potential applied at the entrance capillary (E(C)), and the temperature of the drying gas (T(G)). The effects produced by F(S) and E(C) on the spectra strongly suggest the key role of surface activity in determining the relative fraction of the ions reaching the detector. The experimental effects of F(S) and T(G) were interpreted considering the presence of at least two reactions in the gas phase and a dimerization occurring in the droplets. These perturbations cannot be generalized because they appear to be chemical system-related and instrument-dependent. Therefore, the identification of perturbations is a required task for any metal-ligand equilibrium study performed by ESI-MS. Our results indicate that perturbations can be identified by evaluating the effects produced in the spectra by a change of instrumental parameters. Copyright (C) 2010 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