4.8 Article

Development of cVSSI-APCI for the Improvement of Ion Suppression and Matrix Effects in Complex Mixtures

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c05136

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01GM135432]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The new ionization technique, vibrating sharp-edge spray ionization (cVSSI), coupled with corona discharge, has been investigated for its atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) capabilities. The optimized source has shown improved ion signal intensity, overcoming of matrix effects, and limitation of ion suppression, compared to the state-of-the-art ESI source and a new APCI-like source. The results demonstrate significant enhancements in ion signal intensity and abilities to overcome ion suppression in both methanol and aqueous samples.
The new ionization technique termed vibrating sharp-edge spray ionization (cVSSI) has been coupled with corona discharge to investigate atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) capabilities. The optimized source was evaluated for its ability to enhance ion signal intensity, overcome matrix effects, and limit ion suppression. The results have been compared with state-of-the-art ESI source performance as well as a new APCI-like source. In methanol, the ion signal intensity increased 10-fold and >10-fold for cocaine and the suppressed analytes, respectively. The ability to overcome ion suppression was improved from 2-fold to 16-fold for theophylline and vitamin D2, respectively. For aqueous samples, ion signal levels increased by two orders of magnitude for all analytes. In both solvent systems, the signal-to-noise ratios also increased for all suppressed analytes. One example of the characterization of low-ionizing (by ESI or cVSSI alone) species in the presence of high-ionizing species by direct analysis from a cotton swab is presented. The work is discussed with respect to the advantages of cVSSI-APCI for direct, in situ, and field analyses.

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