4.5 Article

Analytical Validation of a Portable Mass Spectrometer Featuring Interchangeable, Ambient Ionization Sources for High Throughput Forensic Evidence Screening

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-016-1562-2

关键词

Analytical validation; Ambient ionization; Portable mass spectrometer; Forensics; Forensic evidence; Desorption electrospray ionization; Paper spray ionization; Atmospheric pressure chemical ionization; SWGDRUG

资金

  1. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice [2011-DN-BX-K552, 2015-IJ-CX-K011]
  2. National Science Foundation MRI Program [CHE 1337497]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forensic evidentiary backlogs are indicative of the growing need for cost-effective, high-throughput instrumental methods. One such emerging technology that shows high promise in meeting this demand while also allowing on-site forensic investigation is portable mass spectrometric (MS) instrumentation, particularly that which enables the coupling to ambient ionization techniques. While the benefits of rapid, on-site screening of contraband can be anticipated, the inherent legal implications of field-collected data necessitates that the analytical performance of technology employed be commensurate with accepted techniques. To this end, comprehensive analytical validation studies are required before broad incorporation by forensic practitioners can be considered, and are the focus of this work. Pertinent performance characteristics such as throughput, selectivity, accuracy/precision, method robustness, and ruggedness have been investigated. Reliability in the form of false positive/negative response rates is also assessed, examining the effect of variables such as user training and experience level. To provide flexibility toward broad chemical evidence analysis, a suite of rapidly-interchangeable ion sources has been developed and characterized through the analysis of common illicit chemicals and emerging threats like substituted phenethylamines.

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