4.7 Article

Bio-oil Analysis Using Negative Electrospray Ionization: Comparative Study of High-Resolution Mass Spectrometers and Phenolic versus Sugaric Components

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 3796-3802

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef3003558

关键词

-

资金

  1. ConocoPhillips
  2. U.S. Department of Education
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea
  4. Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
  5. DOE [DEAC02-07CH11358]
  6. National Science Foundation
  7. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences [0923005] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously demonstrated that a petroleomic analysis could be performed for bio-oils and revealed the complex nature of bio-oils for the nonvolatile phenolic compounds (Smith, E.; Lee, Y. J. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 5190-5198). As a subsequent study, we have adapted electrospray ionization in negative-ion mode to characterize a wide variety of bio-oil compounds. A comparative study of three common high-resolution mass spectrometers was performed to validate the methodology and to investigate the differences in mass discrimination and resolution. The mass spectrum is dominated by low mass compounds with m/z of 100-250, with some compounds being analyzable by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). We could characterize over 800 chemical compositions, with only about 40 of them being previously known in GC-MS. This unveiled a much more complex nature of bio-oils than typically shown by GC-MS. The pyrolysis products of cellulose and hemicellulose, particularly polyhydroxy cyclic hydrocarbons (or what we call sugaric compounds), such as levoglucosan, could be effectively characterized with this approach. Phenolic compounds from lignin pyrolysis could be clearly distinguished in a contour map of double bond equivalent (DBE) versus the number of carbons from these sugaric compounds.

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

4.7
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