4.4 Article

Comparison of product ion spectra obtained by liquid chromatography/triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry for library search

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 1039-1046

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.1445

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reproducibility of product ion spectra acquired using a liquid chromatography/triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) instrument over a 4-year period, and with three other LC/MS/MS instruments, one from the same manufacturer and two from a different manufacturer, was examined. The MS/MS spectra of 30 drug substances were generated in positive electrospray ionization mode at low, medium, and high collision energies (20, 35, and 50 eV). Purity and Fit score percentages against a 400-compound LC/MS/MS spectral library were calculated using an algorithm in which fragment intensity ratios and weighting factors were included. The long-term reproducibility study was conducted using a brand A instrument; after 4 years the reproducibility of the product ion spectra was still 94%, expressed as average Purity score. The inter-laboratory study involved two parts. Firstly, two LC/MS/MS spectral libraries, created independently in separate laboratories using brand A instruments, were compared with each other. The average Fit and Purity scores of spectra from one library against the other were better than 93 and 91%. respectively, when the same collision energies were used. Secondly, for the comparison of product ion spectra between brand A and brand B instruments, fragmentation conditions were first standardized for amitriptyline as the standard analyte. The average Fit scores of brand B spectra against the brand A spectral library varied between 79 and 85% at all three collision energies. These results indicate that, after standardizing the instrumental conditions, LC/MS/MS spectral libraries of drug substances are suitable for inter-laboratory use. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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