4.8 Article

Gas Chromatography Coupled to Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization FT-ICR Mass Spectrometry for Improvement of Data Reliability

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 87, 期 24, 页码 11957-11961

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b02114

关键词

-

资金

  1. Helmholtz Foundation for HICE virtual institute
  2. European Social Funds (ESF)
  3. DFG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) offers the advantage of molecular ion information with low fragmentation. Hyphenating APCI to gas chromatography (GC) and ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry (FT-ICR MS) enables an improved characterization of complex mixtures. Data amounts acquired by this system are very huge, and existing peak picking algorithms are usually extremely time-consuming, if both gas chromatographic and ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometric data are concerned. Therefore, automatic routines are developed that are capable of handling these data sets and further allow the identification and removal of known ionization artifacts (e.g., water- and oxygen-adducts, demethylation, dehydrogenation, and decarboxylation). Furthermore, the data quality is enhanced by the prediction of an estimated retention index, which is calculated simply from exact mass data combined with a double bond equivalent correction. This retention index is used to identify mismatched elemental compositions. The approach was successfully tested for analysis of semivolatile components in heavy fuel oil and diesel fuel as well as primary combustion particles emitted by a ship diesel research engine. As a result, 10-28% of the detected compounds, mainly low abundant species, classically assigned by using only the mass spectrometric information, were identified as not valid and removed. Although GC separation is limited by the slow acquisition rate of the FT-ICR MS (<1 Hz), a database driven retention time comparison, as commonly used for low resolution GC/MS, can be applied for revealing isomeric information.

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