4.6 Article

Detection of Trace Explosives Using a Novel Sample Introduction and Ionization Method

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 27, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27144551

关键词

trace explosives detection; dielectric barrier discharge; counter flow; mass spectrometry

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21904091, 62001318]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20200876]
  3. Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2020M671578]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel sample introduction and ionization method for trace explosives detection is proposed and investigated, which has the advantages of soft ionization, a low detection limit, and is free of reagent and consumable gas.
A novel sample introduction and ionization method for trace explosives detection is proposed and investigated herein, taking into consideration real-world application requirements. A thermal desorption sampling method and dielectric barrier discharge ionization (DBDI) source, with air as the discharge gas, were developed. The counter flow method was adopted firstly into the DBDI source to remove the interference of ozone and other reactive nitrogen oxides. A separated reaction region with an ion guiding electric field was developed for ionization of the sample molecules. Coupled with a homemade miniature digital linear ion trap mass spectrometer, this compact and robust design, with further optimization, has the advantages of soft ionization, a low detection limit, is free of reagent and consumable gas, and is an easy sample introduction. A range of common nitro-based explosives including TNT, 2,4-DNT, NG, RDX, PETN, and HMX has been studied. A linear response in the range of two orders of magnitude with a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.01 ng for TNT has been demonstrated. Application to the detection of real explosives and simulated mixed samples has also been explored. The work paves the path to developing next generation mass spectrometry (MS) based explosive trace detectors (ETDs).

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

4.6
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