Literature DB >> 23066894

Effect of polar protic and polar aprotic solvents on negative-ion electrospray ionization and chromatographic separation of small acidic molecules.

Brian A Huffman1, Michael L Poltash, Christine A Hughey.   

Abstract

A comprehensive study investigated the effect of polar protic (methanol and water) and polar aprotic (acetonitrile and acetone) solvents on the chromatographic separation and negative-ion electrospray (ESI) response of 49 diverse small, acidic molecules. Flow injection experiments on a triple quadrupole were used to measure the response in neat solvents after optimization of source conditions and implementation of a rigorous quality control program (the later ensured that changes in analyte response were due to the analyte/solvent measured and not changes in instrument performance over time). In all solvents, compounds with electron-withdrawing groups and extended conjugation ionized best due to resonance and inductive effects. Ionization was greatest in methanol or water for all compounds that elicited a response, thus revealing that enhanced sensitivity and lower limits of detection are achieved with polar protic solvents. Response in acetone was equal to or slightly lower than response in acetonitrile in flow injection experiments; however, the water/acetonitrile and water/acetone mobile phases produced the better chromatographic separation. Water/methanol produced slightly less satisfactory separation but the greatest overall response. This increase in response was attributed to the protic nature of methanol and the elution of compounds in a higher organic mobile phase composition (retention times were ∼30% later in methanol). This work is intended to facilitate rational liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry method development for small molecule applications, including metabolomics.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 23066894     DOI: 10.1021/ac302397b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Chem        ISSN: 0003-2700            Impact factor:   6.986


  8 in total

1.  Transferability of the electrospray ionization efficiency scale between different instruments.

Authors:  Jaanus Liigand; Anneli Kruve; Piia Liigand; Asko Laaniste; Marion Girod; Rodolphe Antoine; Ivo Leito
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.109

2.  Assessing the Interplay between the Physicochemical Parameters of Ion-Pairing Reagents and the Analyte Sequence on the Electrospray Desorption Process for Oligonucleotides.

Authors:  Babak Basiri; Mandi M Murph; Michael G Bartlett
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 3.109

3.  Effect of mobile phase on electrospray ionization efficiency.

Authors:  Jaanus Liigand; Anneli Kruve; Ivo Leito; Marion Girod; Rodolphe Antoine
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 3.109

4.  Corona Discharge Suppression in Negative Ion Mode Nanoelectrospray Ionization via Trifluoroethanol Addition.

Authors:  Phillip J McClory; Kristina Håkansson
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 6.986

5.  pH Effects on Electrospray Ionization Efficiency.

Authors:  Jaanus Liigand; Asko Laaniste; Anneli Kruve
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 3.109

6.  Ionization Efficiency of Doubly Charged Ions Formed from Polyprotic Acids in Electrospray Negative Mode.

Authors:  Piia Liigand; Karl Kaupmees; Anneli Kruve
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 3.109

7.  Dopant-Enriched Nitrogen Gas for Enhanced Electrospray Ionization of Released Glycans in Negative Ion Mode.

Authors:  Katarina Madunić; Sander Wagt; Tao Zhang; Manfred Wuhrer; Guinevere S M Lageveen-Kammeijer
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 6.986

Review 8.  Recent developments and emerging trends of mass spectrometric methods in plant hormone analysis: a review.

Authors:  Liyuan Wang; Yilin Zou; Han Yeong Kaw; Gang Wang; Huaze Sun; Long Cai; Chengyu Li; Long-Yue Meng; Donghao Li
Journal:  Plant Methods       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 4.993

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.