4.8 Article

Comparison of sample pre-treatments for laser desorption ionization and secondary ion mass spectrometry imaging of Miscanthus x giganteus

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 101, 期 14, 页码 5578-5585

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.136

关键词

Miscanthus x giganteus, Mass spectrometry imaging; Laser desorption ionization; Secondary ion mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Department of Energy, Office of Science (BER) [DE-FG02-07ER64497]
  2. DOE [DE-FG02-07ER46453, DE-FG02-07ER46471]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efforts to further the potential of the large perennial grass Miscanthus x giganteus as a biofuel feedstock would be aided by the ability to image the chemical species present during the fuel production process. Toward this end, two mass spectrometry imaging (MSI) approaches have been investigated here laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (LDI-MS) and secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS). As a first step, cross sections of Miscanthus were subjected to a variety of sample preparation methods to optimize conditions for MSI. For LDI-MS, a thin metal coating (2 nm thick Au) provided high quality signals of saccharide-related ions. The traditional matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization matrix, 2,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid, also showed high efficiency for the desorption of saccharide-related ions. In contrast, with alpha-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid matrix, these ions were nearly absent in the mass spectra. Direct laser ablation of untreated Miscanthus sections was also performed. High resolution images, where the fine structure of the vascular bundle could be clearly visualized, were obtained using SIMS. Although coating the sections with a nanometer thick Au layer can greatly enhance the quality of SIMS images, the coating had limited effect on secondary ion signal enhancement. Using the optimized mass spectrometry approaches described here, information on the spatial distribution of several saccharides was obtained. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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