4.5 Article

New Possibilities for the Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds by Their Molecular Ions in Air Using μs-Pulsed GD TOFMS

期刊

ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 120-127

出版社

ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.46770/AS.2021.031

关键词

-

资金

  1. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [19-03-00251_A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown that glow discharge analysis is capable of effectively ionizing volatile organic compounds, enabling the analysis of VOCs in ambient air and gas mixtures. Direct determination of different classes of VOCs in ambient air using microsecond pulsed glow discharge time-of-flight mass spectrometry was demonstrated, with low fragmentation benefitting quantitative determination.
A recent trend in glow discharge analysis, previously considered as a 'purely inorganic' technique, is related to the effective ionisation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This approach was demonstrated to be capable of analysing VOCs in both model gas mixtures and ambient air. In the current study, the possibility of the direct determination of VOCs of different classes of organic compounds (including toluene, p-xylene, chlorobenzene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene) in ambient air using microsecond pulsed glow discharge time-of-flight mass spectrometry (mu s-Pulsed GD TOFMS) with copper hollow cathode was demonstrated. The ionisation processes with the formation of molecular ions M+, which can be used for quantification, were discussed. The fragmentation of detected molecular ions of VOCs was found to be quite low, which benefits both qualitative and quantitative determination. The ease of identification and relative simplicity of the mass spectrum is promising for the analysis of VOC mixtures. One of the possible applications of the designed method is the direct determination of VOCs in human exhaled breath for the diagnosis of lung diseases, including lung cancer. However, revealing its potential applicability for this purpose requires further research.

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