4.5 Review

Liquid chromatography-electron ionization mass spectrometry: Fields of application and evaluation of the performance of a Direct-EI interface

期刊

MASS SPECTROMETRY REVIEWS
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 978-989

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mas.20054

关键词

nano-column liquid chromatography; electron ionization mass spectrometry; Direct-EI; trace analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive evaluation and a thorough discussion of the fields of possible applications of the Direct-EI interface are described in this review. Direct-EI allows the direct introduction of the effluent from a capillary HPLC column into the electron ionization (EI) ion source of a mass spectrometer Thanks to the reduced liquid intake and an in-source nebulizer the interfacing process occurs smoothly and entirely into the ion source. No intermediate interfacing mechanisms of any sort are interposed between the column and the mass spectrometer, thus circumventing any undesired sample loss and minimizing the effort for instrument modification. Theoretically, any GC-MS system can be converted into an LC-MS for EI amenable compounds. Several parameters, crucial for a successful integration of liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, have been considered in the evaluation of the functioning of such an interface: limit of detection, linearity of response, reproducibility, and chromatographic compatibility. Different mobile phases, also containing non-volatile buffers, were taken into account, demonstrating an outstanding separation flexibility. The entire set of experiments was carried out at different flow rates and temperatures of the ion source. The interface behavior was also tested in real world applications, with mixtures of pesticides, hormones, nitro-PAH, and endocrine-disrupting compounds, allowing picogram level detection and the possibility to record library-matchable, readily interpretable electron ionization mass spectra, for prompt compound characterization and confirmation. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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