4.8 Article

An Interlaboratory Evaluation of Drift Tube Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry Collision Cross Section Measurements

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 89, 期 17, 页码 9048-9055

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b01729

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIH R01GM092218]
  2. U.S. Army Research Office and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) [W911 NF-14-2-0022]
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [83573601]
  4. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the NIH [R01 ES022190]
  5. DOE [DE-AC05-76RL0 1830]
  6. Vienna Business Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Collision cross section (CCS) measurements resulting from ion mobility mass spectrometry (IM-MS) experiments provide a promising orthogonal dimension of structural information in MS-based analytical separations. As with any molecular identifier, interlaboratory standardization must precede broad range integration into analytical workflows. In this study, we present a reference drift tube ion mobility mass spectrometer (DTIM-MS) where improvements on the measurement accuracy of experimental parameters influencing IM separations provide standardized drift tube, nitrogen CCS values ((CCSN2)-C-DT) for over 120 unique ion species with the lowest measurement uncertainty to date. The reproducibility of these (CCSN2)-C-DT values are evaluated across three additional laboratories on a commercially available DTIM-MS instrument. The traditional stepped field CCS method performs with a relative standard deviation (RSD) of 0.29% for all ion species across the three additional laboratories. The calibrated single field CCS method, which is compatible with a wide range of chromatographic inlet systems, performs with an average, absolute bias of 0.54% to the standardized stepped field (CCSN2)-C-DT values on the reference system. The low RSD and biases observed in this interlaboratory study illustrate the potential of DTIM-MS for providing a molecular identifier for a broad range of discovery based 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