4.7 Article

Assessment of molecular diversity of lignin products by various ionization techniques and high-resolution mass spectrometry

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 713, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136573

关键词

Lignin; ESI; APPI; APCI; FT-ICR MS

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41625014, 41861144026]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFA0601002]
  3. Tianjin University [390/0701321010]
  4. German Research Foundation [DFG VO 1355/4-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lignin is a highly complex, plant-derived natural biomass component, the analysis of which requires significant demands on the analytical platform. Fourier transform ion cyclotron mass spectrometry (FT-ICR MS) has been shown to be able to readily assess the complexity of lignin and lignin degradation products by assigning tens of thousands of compounds with elemental formulae. Nevertheless, many experimental and instrumental parameters introduce discrimination towards certain components, which limits the comprehensive MS analysis. As a result, a complete characterization of the lignome remains a challenge. The present study investigated a degraded lignin sample using FT-ICR MS and compared several atmospheric pressure ionization methods, e.g., electrospray ionization, atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization, and atmospheric-pressure photoionization. The results clearly show that the number of heteroatoms (e.g., N, S, P) in the sample greatly increases the chemical diversity of lignin, while at the same time also providing potentially useful biomarkers. We demonstrate here that FT-ICR MS was able to directly isolate isotopically pure single components from the ultra-complex mixture for subsequent structural analysis, without the time-consuming chromatographic separation. Capsule: Various ionization techniques coupled to FT-ICR MS provide a powerful tool to assess the lignome coverage. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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