4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Application of Group I Metal Adduction to the Separation of Steroids by Traveling Wave Ion Mobility Spectrometry

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-018-2085-9

关键词

Steroids; Metal ion adduction; Isomer discrimination; Ion mobility spectrometry; Collision cross section

资金

  1. National Science Foundation, Division of Chemistry [1507989, 1460829]
  2. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences from the Molecular Mechanisms of Disease Predoctoral Training Program [T32GM107001]
  3. Division Of Chemistry
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1507989, 1460829] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Steroids represent an interesting class of small biomolecules due to their use as biomarkers and their status as scheduled drugs. Although the analysis of steroids is complicated by the potential for many isomers, ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) has previously shown promise for the rapid separation of steroid isomers. This work is aimed at the further development of IMS separation for the analysis of steroids. Here, traveling wave ion mobility spectrometry (TWIMS) was applied to the study of group I metal adducted steroids and their corresponding multimers for five sets of isomers. Each set of isomers had a minimum of one dimeric metal ion adduct that exhibited a resolution greater than one (i.e., approaching baseline resolution). Additionally, ion-neutral collision cross sections (CCSs) were measured using polyalanine as a calibrant, which may provide an additional metric contributing to analyte identification. Where possible, measured CCSs were compared to previously reported values. When measuring CCSs of steroid isomers using polyalanine as the calibrant, nitrogen CCS values were within 1.0% error for monomeric sodiated adducts and slightly higher for the dimeric sodiated adducts. Overall, TWIMS was found to successfully separate steroids as dimeric adducts of group I metals. [GRAPHICS] .

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

4.5
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