4.6 Article

On the determination of underivatised fatty alcohol ethoxylates by electrospray ionisation-mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1118, 期 2, 页码 188-198

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2006.03.093

关键词

fatty alcohol ethoxylates; electrospray ionisation; ethoxylated alcohols; evaporative light-scattering; mass spectrometry; rtesponse factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The oligomers of fatty alcohol ethoxylates (FAEs) exhibit large sensitivity differences in mass spectrometry with electrospray ionisation (ESI-MS) and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI). Standards of the oligomers from m = 1 to 7 ethylene oxide units (EOs) and linear alkyl chains from n = 10 to 18 carbon atoms were infused to examine the relative sensitivities or response factors in several media. The response factors of the [M + H](+) and [M + Na](+) peaks in 9:1 acetonitrile/water and methanol/water media containing acid buffers increased following irregular patterns when n and m increased. In methanol/water the response factors depended on the parity of m, being larger than the average trend for the oligomers with an even value of m with respect to those having an odd value. This was attributed to the presence of an uncompensated C-O-C or C-O-H dipole in the former oligomers. The advantages of using ESI over APCI and of measuring the [M + H](+) peaks in an acid methanol/water medium containing 0.1 M HCl are discussed. The advantages and limitations of using models of the response factors to evaluate oligomer concentrations with a reduced set of selected standards are examined. The determination of underivatised FAEs using acid media was made compatible with previous HPLC separation by implementing either a triconcentric nebulizer fed with an acid liquid sheath, or a capillary T-union inserted between the column outlet and the biconcentric nebulizer, and fed with an acid stream provided by a syringe pump. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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