4.5 Article

Direct Inlet Probe Atmospheric Pressure Photo and Chemical Ionization Coupled to Ultrahigh Resolution Mass Spectrometry for the Description of Lignocellulosic Biomass

期刊

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jasms.9b00091

关键词

direct inlet probe; high-resolution mass spectrometry; biomass; APPI; APCI

资金

  1. Labex SynOrg [ANR-11-LABX-0029]
  2. European Regional Development Fund [ERDF HN0001343]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lignocellulosic biomass, in particular wood, is a complex mixture containing cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and other trace compounds. Chemical analysis of these biomasses, especially lignin components, is a challenge. Lignin is a highly reticulated polymer that is poorly soluble and usually requires chemical, enzymatic, or thermal degradation for its analysis. Here, we studied the thermal degradation of lignocellulosic biomass using a direct insertion probe (DIP). The DIP was used with two ionization sources: atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI) coupled to ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry. Beech lignocellulosic biomass samples were used to develop the DIP-APCI/APPI methodology. Two other wood species (maple and oak) were analyzed after optimization of DIP parameters. The two ionization sources were compared at first and showed different responses toward beech samples, according to the source specificity. APPI was more specific to lignin degradation compounds, whereas APCI covered a larger variety of oxygenated compounds, e.g., fatty acids and polyphenolics compounds, in addition to lignin degradation products. The study of the thermodesorption profile gave information on the different steps of lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis. The comparison of the three feed sample types (oak, maple, and beech), using principal component analysis (PCA) with DIP-APCI experiments, showed molecular level differences between beech wood pellets and the two other wood species (maple and oak).

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