4.8 Article

Capillary Electrophoresis-Nanoelectrospray Ionization-Selected Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry via a True Sheathless Metal-Coated Emitter Interface for Robust and High-Sensitivity Sample Quantification

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 88, 期 8, 页码 4418-4425

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b04912

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health: National Cancer Institute [R33 CA155252, R21 CA199744]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [P41 GM103493]
  3. DOE [DE-AC05-76RL01830]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new sheathless transient capillary isotachophoresis (CITP)/capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE)-MS interface, based on a commercially available capillary with an integrated metal-coated ESI emitter, was developed in this study aiming at overcoming the reproducibility and ruggedness problems suffered to a certain degree by almost all the available CE-MS interfaces, and pushing the CE-MS technology suitable for routine sample analysis with high sensitivity. The new CITP/CZE-MS interface allows the electric contact between ESI voltage power supply and the CE separation liquid by using a conductive liquid that comes in contact with the metal-coated surface of the ESI emitter, making it a true sheathless CE-MS interface. Stable electrospray was established by avoiding the formation of gas bubbles from electrochemical reaction inside the CE capillary. Crucial operating parameters, such as sample loading volume, flow rate, and separation voltage, were systematically evaluated for their effects on both CITP/CZE separation efficiency and MS detection sensitivity. Around one hundred CITP/CZE-MS analyses can be easily achieved by using the new sheathless CITP/CZE interface without a noticeable loss of metal coating on the ESI emitter surface, or degrading of the ESI emitter performance. The reproducibility in analyte migration time and quantitative performance of the new interface was experimentally evaluated to demonstrate a LOQ below 5 attomole.

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

4.8
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