Purified methylenedianiline (MDA) regioisomers were structurally characterized and differentiated using tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), ion mobility-mass spectrometry (IM-MS), and IM-MS/MS in conjunction with computational methods. It was determined that protonation sites on the isomers can vary depending on the position of amino groups, and the resulting protonation sites play a role in the gas-phase stability of the isomer. We also observed differences in the relative distributions of protonated conformations depending on experimental conditions and instrumentation, which is consistent with previous studies on aniline in the gas phase. This work demonstrates the utility of a multifaceted approach for the study of isobaric species and elucidates why previous MDA studies may have been unable to detect and/or differentiate certain isomers. Such analysis may prove useful in the characterization of larger MDA multimeric species, industrial MDA mixtures, and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) mixtures used in polyurethane synthesis.
Purified methylenedianiline (MDA) regioisomers were structurally characterized and differentiated using tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), ion mobility-mass spectrometry (IM-MS), and IM-MS/MS in conjunction with computational methods. It was determined that protonation sites on the isomers can vary depending on the position of amino groups, and the resulting protonation sites play a role in the gas-phase stability of the isomer. We also observed differences in the relative distributions of protonated conformations depending on experimental conditions and instrumentation, which is consistent with previous studies on aniline in the gas phase. This work demonstrates the utility of a multifaceted approach for the study of isobaric species and elucidates why previous MDA studies may have been unable to detect and/or differentiate certain isomers. Such analysis may prove useful in the characterization of larger MDA multimeric species, industrial MDA mixtures, and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) mixtures used in polyurethane synthesis.
Polyurethanes
are inherently
complex, and thus structural characterization of these polymers can
be challenging. Intrinsic distributions of molecular size and cross-linking
produce structural heterogeneity,[1] even
among purified samples. Additional heterogeneity can arise from varying
amounts of hard and soft block segments and structural variations
within the segments themselves.Methylenedianiline (MDA) is
used to synthesize methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate (MDI), a major hard block component of polyurethanes.
Most formulations of industrial grade MDA primarily contain 4,4′-MDA,
along with a number of structural isomers and multimers.[2−4] The purpose of this research is to fully characterize structural
variations within MDA mixtures and eventually MDI mixtures. However,
in order to better understand complex mixtures of MDA and MDI, it
is first necessary to study 2-ring MDA regioisomers that differ only
by the position of amine functional groups, as shown in Figure 1 (asterisks indicate unique protonation sites).
By characterizing specific 2-ring species, we can gain insight into
the behavior of more complex multimeric structures and eventually
determine relative abundances in complex MDA mixtures. Previous MDA
studies in the literature were typically done in a workplace exposure
context and utilized gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS),[4−6] or more recently liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) detection.[7−12] Limitations of these methods for MDA characterization include the
necessity for sample derivatization (GC/MS) and an inability to detect
and differentiate low abundance isomers such as 2,4′-MDA and
2,2′-MDA (both GC/MS and LC-MS). In contrast, techniques which
probe gas-phase structural conformations may provide insight into
the characterization and discrimination of even low-abundance isomers
without requiring sample pretreatment.
Figure 1
Structures of MDA positional
isomers (theo. neutral
molecule monoisotopic mass = 198.12 Da). Potential protonation sites
are labeled with an asterisk.
Structures of MDA positional
isomers (theo. neutral
molecule monoisotopic mass = 198.12 Da). Potential protonation sites
are labeled with an asterisk.Ion mobility-mass spectrometry (IM-MS) is a gas-phase electrophoretic
separation technique coupled to a mass measurement technique and thus
is capable of differentiating isomeric species and characterizing
these species by ion size and mass. In IM, ions are subject to low
energy collisions with a neutral buffer gas and subsequently separated
by their effective gas-phase size.[13−16] Ions which possess a large cross-sectional
area experience a high number of collisions and are impeded, whereas
ions which possess a smaller cross-sectional area experience fewer
collisions and traverse the IM drift region more rapidly. Gas-phase
ion size and shape are described by the molecular collision cross
section (CCS), which can be calculated directly using the elution
time from an electrostatic drift tube (typically on the order of milliseconds).
Coupled with molecular modeling studies, CCS data can be used to investigate
three-dimensional gas-phase structures. A more detailed explanation
of IM-MS methodology as well as potential applications for polymer
analysis can be found elsewhere in the literature.[17−24]The additional dimension of separation based on the size and
shape
of gas-phase ions allows for the differentiation of isobaric species
based on CCS. IM characterization of low-molecular-weight structural
isomers was first studied by Hagen over two decades ago using a stand-alone
(no MS) ambient pressure drift tube instrument.[25,26] Small but reproducible CCS differences were observed for isomers
due to factors such as the position of unique atoms (e.g., nitrogen
in a carbon ring system), location of functional groups, and connectivity
of aromatic ring systems. For example, a consistent trend was observed
for substituted toluene isomers, where substitution at the meta position led to larger CCS values than substitutions
at para or ortho positions.[25] Nevertheless, at the time, Hagen was limited
in his ability to fully interpret the data due to the lack of robust
MS detection.Inspired by Hagen’s work, we used tandem
mass spectrometry
(MS/MS), IM-MS, and IM-MS/MS methods to fully characterize and differentiate
2-ring MDA standards. CCS values were obtained for each isomer, which
provides significant insight into isomeric gas-phase conformation(s)
and their respective stabilities. Moreover, we utilize computational
modeling to assist our interpretation of IM-MS data and to facilitate
connecting isomeric differences in CCS with molecular structures.
Experimental
Section
Materials
4,4′-MDA, 2,4′-MDA, and 2,2′-MDA
were provided by Dr. Stefan Wershofen, Bayer MaterialScience AG, 47812
Krefeld, Germany. Their authenticity was established by 13C and 1H NMR as shown in the Supporting
Information (Figures S-1 through S-6). Methanol and formic
acid were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, USA. Alkali salts and tetralkylammonium
salts were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO) with the exception
of sodium chloride (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA).
Instrumentation
Traveling-Wave
IM-MS
MS, MS/MS, and traveling-wave
(T-wave) IM-MS data were obtained on Synapt G2 and G2-S (Waters Corporation,
Milford, MA) mass spectrometers. The T-wave platform differs from
traditional drift-tube ion mobility (DTIM) in that it utilizes electrodynamic
rather than electrostatic fields. Thus, T-wave drift times cannot
be inserted directly into the Mason-Schamp equation, as the exact
quantitative nature of the T-wave electrodynamic field is unknown.
Nevertheless, T-wave CCS values can be determined when measurements
are calibrated using DTIM CCS values from the literature.[17] In order to obtain CCS values from T-wave measurements,
we used a series of quaternary ammonium salts as calibration standards
in conjunction with their literature DTIM CCS values.[27]All samples were analyzed as positive ions with electrospray
ionization (ESI). The T-wave drift cell was operated with a pressure
of 3 mbar (2.25 Torr), an electrodynamic wave height of 35 V, and
velocity of 700 m/s, and the TOF resolution (m/Δm) was approximately 20 000. MDA samples were dissolved
at a concentration of 0.10 mg/mL in 9:1 methanol/water containing
0.1% formic acid (v/v). When metal salts were used, each was at a
final concentration of 0.050 mg/mL. A direct infusion flow rate of
6.00 μL/min was used for all samples. Other instrument settings
were as follows: 3.00 kV capillary voltage, 80 °C source temperature,
150 °C desolvation temperature, 10 V sampling cone, 2 V extraction
cone, 20 L/h cone gas flow, 1 mL/min trap gas flow, and 90 mL/min
IMS gas flow. All collision-induced dissociation (CID) experiments
were performed prior to T-wave mobility separation. The TOF calibration
was performed using sodium formate clusters.Center-of-mass
(COM) collision energies were converted from lab-frame
collision energies using the following equation:Lab-frame energies are the
voltages applied in the tandem MS instrumentation, while COM energy
is essentially the available energy for molecular rearrangement or
fragmentation.[28] Therefore, COM energy
typically has more useful interpretation power across various instrument
platforms.[29]
Electrostatic Drift-Tube
IM-MS
DTIM measurements using
N2 buffer gas were performed on a prototype ESI-IM-QTOFMS
instrument (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA).[30] Details of this instrumentation are provided elsewhere,
but briefly, the IM-MS consists of a 78 cm uniform-field drift tube
coupled to a high resolution QTOFMS (m/Δm 40,000). The buffer gas was maintained at a pressure of
ca. 4 Torr, and drift voltages were varied in order to correct for
the non-IM flight time of ions through the interfacing ion optics.
CCS values were calculated from drift times using the Mason-Schamp
equation. MDA samples were at a concentration of 0.095 mg/mL in 9:1
methanol/water containing 0.1% formic acid (v/v); also, LiCl and NaCl
were added to the solution so that each had a final concentration
of 0.025 mg/mL. A direct infusion flow rate of 6.00 μL/min was
used.
Computational and Modeling Data
As IM is a coarse-grained
structural measurement, IM-MS results are often supplemented with
computational studies to gain further insight into the gas-phase conformations
of the molecules of interest.[31] These studies
generally include two steps: (1) computationally sampling the conformational
space and (2) theoretical determination of CCS values for the generated
conformations. More detailed structural information can then be inferred
from closer inspection of generated conformations that align with
experimental CCS values. Although different methods exist for both
conformational sampling and theoretical determination of CCS values,
the following protocol was used in this study. A geometry optimization
at the Hartree–Fock level with a 6-31G* basis set was performed
with Gaussian 09 for all of the possible protonation sites on each
isomer (2,2′-MDA: 2 sites; 2,4′-MDA: 3 sites; and 4,4′-MDA:
1 site).[32] Partial charges for each molecule
were derived from ab initio electrostatic potential calculations using
a 6-31G* basis set. These partial charges were then fitted using the
restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) program in AMBER.[33,34] For each of the protonated isomers, a short energy minimization
was performed in AMBER followed by a 10 ps molecular dynamic simulation
to heat the molecule to 1200 K. Then, a long molecular dynamic simulation
was run at 1200 K for 9,000 ps. Structural snapshots were saved every
16,667 steps during the simulation, resulting in 3,000 structural
snapshots. These high-energy structural snapshots were then cooled
to 300 K during a 15 ps molecular dynamic simulation.MOBCAL
software was used to theoretically determine the collision cross section
of the resulting conformations.[35−37] First, the projection approximation
was used to generate helium collision cross section values. For comparison
with the nitrogen experimental values, nitrogen trajectory method
values were determined for a set of conformations spanning the entire
collision cross section range. These values were used to create a
linear function to convert the remaining projection approximation
values to nitrogen trajectory method values. The computational conformational
space plots were then aligned with the experimental data to give structural
insight into the MDA isomers.[38]
Results
and Discussion
Characterization by MS and Tandem MS
Previously, underivatized
4,4′-MDA has been studied using LC-MS/MS instrumentation.[7−12] In these studies, the fragmentation of the 4,4′-MDA parent
ion ([M + H]+ = 199 Da) was monitored by means of a transition
characteristic signal at 106 Da. However, to the best of our knowledge,
no research has been reported for 2,2′-MDA and 2,4′-MDA
structural isomers using modern LC-MS techniques.In the present
study, we observed both of these signals (199 Da, 106 Da) in the 4,4′-MDA,
2,2′-MDA, and 2,4′-MDA direct infusion ESI mass spectra
as shown in Figure 2a–c. In this manuscript,
we use the spectra resulting from ESI rather than the more complex
spectra resulting from MALDI, which will be the focus in later manuscripts
in the series. The base peak of the 4,4′-MDA spectrum is the
[M + H]+ signal at 199 Da, but for 2,2′-MDA and
2,4′-MDA, the 106 Da fragment is the base peak. An additional
signal, although low in abundance, is observed at 211 Da. The base
peak for the 4,4′-MDA at 199 Da is representative of the higher
stability of the 4,4′-MDA than that of the 2,2′-MDA
and 2,4′-MDA. The difference in stability is due to location
of protonation site and will be discussed in more detail later in
the manuscript.
Figure 2
(left) Mass spectra of MDA isomers using direct infusion
ESI-TOFMS
for (a) 4,4′-MDA, (b) 2,2′-MDA, and (c) 2,4′-MDA.
(right) Tandem mass spectra for parent ions ([M + H]+ =
199.13 Da) of (a) 4,4′-MDA, (b) 2,2′-MDA, and (c) 2,4′-MDA.
Center-of-mass collision energies are shown at right; corresponding
lab-frame collision energies are 40, 8, and 0 eV, respectively. For
2,4′-MDA, no collision energy was required for dissociation.
(left) Mass spectra of MDA isomers using direct infusion
ESI-TOFMS
for (a) 4,4′-MDA, (b) 2,2′-MDA, and (c) 2,4′-MDA.
(right) Tandem mass spectra for parent ions ([M + H]+ =
199.13 Da) of (a) 4,4′-MDA, (b) 2,2′-MDA, and (c) 2,4′-MDA.
Center-of-mass collision energies are shown at right; corresponding
lab-frame collision energies are 40, 8, and 0 eV, respectively. For
2,4′-MDA, no collision energy was required for dissociation.Tandem mass spectra of protonated
4,4′-MDA, 2,2′-MDA,
and 2,4′-MDA are presented in Figure 2d–f, and potential corresponding structures of fragment signals
are shown in Table 1. Unsurprisingly, the fragmentation
spectra of all the isomers are similar in nature. However, while 4,4′-MDA
required high collision energy to generate fragments (Figure 2d), 2,2′-MDA and 2,4′-MDA required
minimal or no additional energy to induce dissociation (Figure 2e,f). Because of the high collision energy required
to fragment 4,4′-MDA, additional signals of 165 and 180 Da
are observed which are not present in 2,2′-MDA and 2,4′-MDA
tandem mass spectra. Additional fragmentation data and discussion
concerning the low-intensity 211 Da signal is provided in the Supporting Information (Figure S-7).
Table 1
Possible Structures of Commonly-Observed
MDA Fragment Ions
In order to compare the gas-phase stabilities of the
three isomers,
we monitored the conversion from 199 to 106 Da as a function of applied
collision energy for all three isomers as shown in Figure 3. Both lab-frame and center-of-mass (COM) collision
energies are displayed. It is clear that 4,4′-MDA (double para-substitution) is significantly more stable than either
2,2′-MDA (double ortho-substitution) or 2,4′-MDA
(combined ortho- and para-substitution).
For example, when 2.0 eV (COM) is applied to the 4,4′-MDA isomer,
over 95% of the normalized signal remains in the 199 Da parent ion.
However, at that same energy, the 199 Da parent ions for both 2,2′-MDA
and 2,4′-MDA are entirely depleted. The underlying cause of
this key difference as well as minor differences in the gas-phase
behavior of 2,2′-MDA and 2,4′-MDA will be discussed
later in the manuscript, as these observations were corroborated by
other methods of structural analysis.
Figure 3
Collision-induced dissociation curves
monitoring the transition
of respective 199 Da parent ions to 106 Da fragment ions. Individual
curves for 4,4′-MDA (solid line; black circles), 2,2′-MDA
(short dash; red squares), and 2,4′-MDA (long dash; blue triangles)
are superimposed. Both center-of-mass and lab-frame collision energies
are shown.
Collision-induced dissociation curves
monitoring the transition
of respective 199 Da parent ions to 106 Da fragment ions. Individual
curves for 4,4′-MDA (solid line; black circles), 2,2′-MDA
(short dash; red squares), and 2,4′-MDA (long dash; blue triangles)
are superimposed. Both center-of-mass and lab-frame collision energies
are shown.A potential complicating factor
in MS-based analysis of these compounds
is the uncertain location of the additional proton that creates the
[M + H]+ ions. Literature on aniline suggests two potential
protonation sites in the gas-phase, one on the amine and one on the
aromatic ring para to the amine.[39−43] Recently, Eberlin and co-workers demonstrated that
aniline molecules protonated at the amine group can be resolved from
those protonated on the ring using T-wave separation.[44] Because MDA isomers are essentially two aniline molecules
connected by a methylene bridge, it is probable this behavior applies
to MDA as well. Therefore, as tandem MS alone was unable to provide
clarity about how protonation sites affect gas-phase structures, structural
analysis by IM and computational methods were required.
Structural
Analysis Using IM-MS and Computational Methods
Using both
T-wave and DTIM instrumentation, CCS values were obtained
for the [M + H]+ ions of the three isomers as shown in
Table 2. Due to inherent differences in instrumentation
and data analysis between T-wave and DTIM methodology, small differences
for CCS values between platforms were expected, as observed in Table 2. In order to obtain CCS values from T-wave instrumentation,
the use of calibration standards is required; in contrast, DTIM CCS
values can be directly calculated from the kinetic theory of gases
using the Mason-Schamp equation.[13−15] In this study, DTIM
CCS values were systematically higher than T-wave CCS values by 3.4
± 0.5% Å2 (N2). We hypothesize that
this systematic difference between T-wave and DTIM CCS values results
from the calibration of the former and from the exposure of the charge
on the MDA molecules. For the tetraalkylammonium ions used for T-wave
CCS calibration, the charge resides in the center of the molecule
and is surrounded by hydrocarbon tails. These tails essentially shield
the charged region from the polarizable N2 drift gas. As
a result, only weak inelastic collisions occur between the tetraalkylammonium
calibrants and N2. However, in our MDA system, the charge
is not shielded, and thus, the MDA ions are expected to experience
stronger inelastic interactions with N2 which are not accounted
for using the current calibration strategy.
Table 2
Collision
Cross-Section Values of
Various MDA Ions Obtained on T-Wave and Drift Tube IM-MS Instrumentationa
MDA species (ion)
T-wave
N2 (Å2)
DTIM
N2 (Å2)
4,4′ [M + H]+
156.0 ± 0.7
162.7 ± 0.3
2,2′ [M + H]+
139.9 ± 1.8
145.0 ± 0.2
2,4′ [M + H]+ (1)
139.9 ± 1.1
145.4 ± 0.4
2,4′ [M + H]+ (2)
155.9 ± 0.5
N/A
Errors
shown represent the respective
standard deviations.
Errors
shown represent the respective
standard deviations.Significant
differences in CCS for the [M + H]+ ions
were observed between 4,4′-MDA and 2,2′-MDA, suggesting
the protonation site is not centrally located in the structure. For
2,4′-MDA, we observed two CCS values in T-wave and only one
corresponding CCS value for DTIM. This will be discussed later, as
further analysis of the role of protonation on gas-phase stability
was necessary to explain this observation.While only one type
of protonation site is available for 4,4′-MDA,
the para-amino groups (p-NH2), two potential sites exist for 2,2′-MDA and three
for 2,4′-MDA, as shown by the asterisks in Figure 1. For 2,2′-MDA, protonation can occur at
either the ortho-amino groups (o-NH2) or the aromatic ring opposite the ortho-amino group (ring). On 2,4′-MDA, p-NH2, o-NH2, and ring sites are all present, and any one of these may be
protonated.While CCS measurements were obtained using both
T-wave and DTIM
platforms, the majority of IM-MS and IM-MS/MS data was obtained using
the T-wave platform and will therefore be the focus of this report.
Extracted CCS profiles of the protonated isomers (199 Da) obtained
using IM-MS are shown in Figure 4a. One conformation
of 4,4′-MDA was generated with a CCS of 156 Å2 while 2,2′-MDA generated one conformation with a CCS of 140
Å2. In contrast, 2,4-MDA generated two conformations
having CCS values of 156 and 140 Å2. The alignment
of these two values with the 4,4′-MDA and 2,2′-MDA CCS
values in Figure 4a (dotted line) indicate
similar respective conformations.
Figure 4
(a) CCS profiles of 4,4′-MDA (solid
line), 2,2′-MDA
(short dash), and 2,4′-MDA (long dash) [M + H]+ ions
extracted from T-wave data. Vertical lines are added for visual alignment.
(b) Conformations for the possible protonation sites for the (a) 4,4′-MDA,
(b) 2,2′-MDA, and (c) 2,4′-MDA were generated using
computational conformational search methods. The theoretical nitrogen
CCS is plotted against the relative energy for each computationally
generated conformation. Conformations for the p-NH2 protonated isomers are shown in black, the o-NH2 protonated isomers are shown in red, and the ring protonated isomers are shown in blue.
(a) CCS profiles of 4,4′-MDA (solid
line), 2,2′-MDA
(short dash), and 2,4′-MDA (long dash) [M + H]+ ions
extracted from T-wave data. Vertical lines are added for visual alignment.
(b) Conformations for the possible protonation sites for the (a) 4,4′-MDA,
(b) 2,2′-MDA, and (c) 2,4′-MDA were generated using
computational conformational search methods. The theoretical nitrogen
CCS is plotted against the relative energy for each computationally
generated conformation. Conformations for the p-NH2 protonated isomers are shown in black, the o-NH2 protonated isomers are shown in red, and the ring protonated isomers are shown in blue.Additionally, an IM-MS/MS structural depletion
study was performed
to connect the gas-phase stabilities of these conformations with potential
protonation sites. In Figure 5, IM profiles
were obtained for the protonated isomers using different collision
energies and corresponding drift times were converted to CCS values.
Consistent with earlier tandem MS data, 4,4′-MDA has one primary
conformation (156 Å2) which begins to deplete when
high collision energy (4.2 eV) is applied as shown in Figure 5a. We can assign this CCS value to a conformation
which is p-NH2 protonated, as 4,4′-MDA
cannot be protonated at other positions. Because 2,4′-MDA contains
one p-NH2 site as well, we also assign
its CCS value of 156 Å2 to p-NH2 protonation. Evidence for this is shown in Figure 5b, where the ∼45% depletion rate of the larger
2,4′-MDA conformation for 4.2 eV matches that of 4,4′-MDA
shown in Figure 5a. Because both of these conformations
are rather resistant to collisionally induced depletion and fragmentation,
we conclude that p-NH2 protonation generates
species that are relatively stable in the gas phase.
Figure 5
Collisionally activated
CCS profiles of [M + H]+ ions
for (a) 4,4′-MDA, (b) 2,2′-MDA, and (c) 2,4′-MDA.
Center-of-mass energies are shown; corresponding lab-frame energies
are 0, 10, and 25 eV, respectively. Note the difference in scales
of the y-axes for (a) to (c). Inset relative percentages
represent signal intensities compared to those without collisional
activation. Vertical lines are added for visual alignment.
Collisionally activated
CCS profiles of [M + H]+ ions
for (a) 4,4′-MDA, (b) 2,2′-MDA, and (c) 2,4′-MDA.
Center-of-mass energies are shown; corresponding lab-frame energies
are 0, 10, and 25 eV, respectively. Note the difference in scales
of the y-axes for (a) to (c). Inset relative percentages
represent signal intensities compared to those without collisional
activation. Vertical lines are added for visual alignment.In contrast, the less intense conformations for
2,2′-MDA
and 2,4′-MDA of 140 Å2 were less stable, leading
to significant depletion upon collisional activation (Figure 5b,c). Both of these conformations were entirely
depleted when 4.2 eV of energy was applied. These are more difficult
to assign structurally, as two remaining protonation sites exist for
the isomers (o-NH2 and ring). Conformations of all the possible protonation sites for the three
isomers were generated using theoretical conformational search methods
to provide further structural insight. For each of the six protonation
sites, 3,000 conformations were generated and the theoretical CCS
value and energy were determined and plotted for each conformation
in Figure 4b. The protonation sites are indicated
by the following colors: the p-NH2 conformations
are shown in black, the o-NH2 conformations
are shown in red, and the ring conformations are
shown in blue. The p-NH2 conformations
for both the 2,4′-MDA isomer and the 4,4′-MDA isomer
demonstrate close theoretical CCS alignment and thus support the assignment
of the larger observed CCS value. For o-NH2 and ring protonation sites in 2,2′-MDA and
2,4′-MDA, theoretical CCS values are similar, which makes it
difficult to differentiate these protonation sites by CCS. However,
the 2,2′-MDA and 2,4′-MDA maps shown in Figure 4b do suggest that protonation at the o-NH2 position creates higher energy conformations than
those with ring protonation. High-energy conformations
likely correspond to species that undergo metastable fragmentation
in the mass spectrometer, which was observed for 2,2′-MDA and
2,4′-MDA as noted earlier in Figures 2 and 3. Therefore, it is likely that o-NH2 protonation leads to metastable fragmentation
into 106 Da, whereas ring protonation is somewhat
more stable and allows detection of (at least some of) these ions
as intact 199 Da species.Although the stability of the MDA
isomers is related to protonation
site, it should be noted that small differences in energy can change
the relative abundances of each site. As shown in Table 2, we did not observe the p-NH2 protonation site for 2,4′-MDA using DTIM instrumentation,
while this protonation site was observed in low abundance using T-wave
instrumentation (e.g., Figure 4a). This is
likely due to the different ion sources for the two platforms, which
results in different voltages, ion transmission efficiencies, etc.
As mentioned earlier, previous studies on aniline protonation in the
gas phase suggest that the two protonation sites (−NH2 or ring) are relatively close in energy. Therefore,
the relative abundances of aniline protonation sites can fluctuate
due to small changes in experimental conditions.[39] Likewise, MDA protonation sites appear to be close in energy,
and the relative abundances of the protonation sites can change as
well. This explains why the p-NH2 conformation
of 2,4′-MDA is observed in low abundance using T-wave instrumentation
but not using DTIM instrumentation. However, once the MDA compounds
are protonated, the relative order of stability across both platforms
is consistent as shown in the Supporting Information (Table S-1).A closer look at the computationally generated
conformations gives
further insight into the metastable nature of the o-NH2 protonated isomers. The computationally generated
conformations were structurally clustered on the basis of RMSD resulting
in ten representative structures. These structures for the possible
protonation sites for the three isomers can be found in the Supporting Information, but the most populated
conformations are shown in Figure 6. The most
populated conformation for 4,4′-MDA is shown in Figure 6a. This molecule exhibits an extended structure,
consistent with experimental CCS data shown in Table 2. Conformations for 2,2′-MDA are shown in Figure 6b–d. The conformations in Figure 6b,c show o-NH2 protonated
2,2′-MDA, whereas the conformation in Figure 6d shows ring protonation. Two o-NH2 protonated isomers are needed here to explain two
of our experimental observations. Figure 6b
is represented of the metastable o-NH2 protonation, while Figure 6c is representative
of a slightly more stable and highly populated o-NH2 protonation. When the proton resides between the two amine
groups, a more stable conformation is achieved, which may explain
why we see a slightly more stable 2,2′-MDA isomer in Figure 3 compared to the 2,4′-MDA isomer. These three
conformations are all representative of a smaller structure, which
is consistent with the experimental CCS data shown in Table 2. Conformations for 2,4′-MDA are shown in
Figure 6e–g. Figure 6e shows the p-NH2 protonation
whereas Figure 6f shows o-NH2 protonation and Figure 6g shows ring protonation. The conformation in Figure 6e is representative of the extended structure similar to the
conformation shown in Figure 6a, which supports
the experimental CCS alignment for both 4,4′-MDA and the larger
2,4′-MDA conformation. The conformations shown in Figure 6f,g are representative of a smaller structure, which
is also consistent with the experimental CCS data in Table 2. The smaller structures observed for the o-NH2 protonation and ring protonation
for 2,2′-MDA and 2,4′-MDA support the alignment of their
experimental CCS values.
Figure 6
RMSD clustering representatives from computational
conformational
sampling are shown for each of the protonation sites. (a) 4,4′-MDA p-NH2 protonated, (b) 2,2′-MDA o-NH2 protonated, (c) 2,2′-MDA o-NH2 protonated, (d) 2,2′-MDA ring protonated, (e) 2,4′-MDA p-NH2 protonated, (f) 2,4′-MDA o-NH2 protonated, and (g) 2,4′-MDA ring protonated. Red circles indicate the additional proton. Labeled
bond distances are used to show the proximity of the additional proton
to the bridging carbon that would lead to a 1,5-hydrogen shift fragmentation
of the 2-ring MDA. A percentage is shown below each conformation to
show how many conformations the selected one represents, as a result
of RMSD clustering. Two conformations are shown for the 2,2-MDA o-NH2 protonated 2-ring MDA due to two favorable
conformations that result from this protonation.
RMSD clustering representatives from computational
conformational
sampling are shown for each of the protonation sites. (a) 4,4′-MDAp-NH2 protonated, (b) 2,2′-MDAo-NH2 protonated, (c) 2,2′-MDAo-NH2 protonated, (d) 2,2′-MDA ring protonated, (e) 2,4′-MDAp-NH2 protonated, (f) 2,4′-MDAo-NH2 protonated, and (g) 2,4′-MDA ring protonated. Red circles indicate the additional proton. Labeled
bond distances are used to show the proximity of the additional proton
to the bridging carbon that would lead to a 1,5-hydrogen shift fragmentation
of the 2-ring MDA. A percentage is shown below each conformation to
show how many conformations the selected one represents, as a result
of RMSD clustering. Two conformations are shown for the 2,2-MDAo-NH2 protonated 2-ring MDA due to two favorable
conformations that result from this protonation.
Mechanism for Protonation and Fragmentation of MDA Isomers
Combining tandem MS, IM-MS, IM-MS/MS, and computational modeling
data, we propose mechanisms for protonation and fragmentation of MDA
structural isomers in Scheme 1. The gas-phase
stability of each isomer is inherently related to both the position
of the amine groups and the location of the additional proton. The
4,4′-MDA isomer can only be protonated at p-NH2 groups and is the most stable gas-phase ion we observed.
When a large collision energy is applied to the 4,4′-MDA parent
ion, a loss of a hydrogen radical occurs, leading to alpha cleavage and formation of the 106 Da fragment. As collision energy
continues to increase, other pathways also emerge, forming other fragments
(Figure 2d). On the other hand, 2,2′-MDA
can be protonated at either the o-NH2 or ring position. When 2,2′-MDA is protonated on an o-NH2 group, even without applied collision energy,
it readily undergoes a 1,5-hydrogen shift, due to the proximity of
the aminehydrogen to the bridging carbon on the opposite aromatic
ring (Figure 6b), which leads to formation
of the 106 Da fragment and neutral aniline. The driving force for
this process is likely the stability of the products: aniline can
either remain neutral or further decompose to 77 Da as shown in Figure 2e,f, and the 106 Da fragment can further rearrange
to a tropylium-like ion of the same mass.[7,39] This
mechanism describes the metastable behavior of these ions; therefore,
detection of o-NH2 protonated 2,4′-MDA
or 2,2′-MDA is minimal. As a result, the primary conformation
observed for the 2,2′-MDA [M + H]+ ion (199 Da)
is composed of ring protonated species. When a moderate
collision energy is applied to ring protonated 2,2′-MDA, loss
of a hydrogen radical on the ring leads to rearrangement and formation
of the 106 Da fragment as well. Finally, 2,4′-MDA may be protonated
at all three sites. Protonation at the o-NH2 leads to significant metastable fragmentation due to a 1,5-hydrogen
shift (Figure 6f) as in 2,2′-MDA, and
protonation at the ring position leads to hydrogen
radical loss and rearrangement upon collisional activation. In contrast,
protonation at the p-NH2 results in a
more stable conformation which fragments through a mechanism similar
to that of 4,4′-MDA. This fragmentation mechanism observed
for the 2-ring isomers should play a major role in the characterization
of the larger industrial MDA sample mixtures.
Scheme 1
Proposed Protonated
Structures and 199 Da → 106 Da Fragmentation
Pathways for MDA Isomers
Activation energy
is abbreviated
as EA.
Proposed Protonated
Structures and 199 Da → 106 Da Fragmentation
Pathways for MDA Isomers
Activation energy
is abbreviated
as EA.
Conclusions
In this study, MDA structural isomers have been characterized and
differentiated by their gas-phase stabilities and potential protonation
sites using a combination of MS, IM, and structural insights guided
by theoretical modeling. Our results confirm that, similar to aniline,
MDA may be protonated at either amine positions or ring positions
in the gas phase. Structural differences between positional isomers
play a large role in determining the gas-phase stability as does the
site of protonation. The collective use of tandem MS, IM-MS, IM-MS/MS,
and computational methods allowed us to gain significant structural
understanding of this system and suggests that a holistic approach
to studying positional isomers is of great utility.Industrial
grade MDA, which is used to synthesize polyurethanes,
is composed primarily of 4,4′-MDA but also 2,2′-MDA,
2,4′-MDA, and larger multimers. On the basis of the data presented
in this paper, we hypothesize that previous studies on MDA mixtures
which focused primarily on 4,4′-MDA did so due to the large
difference in gas-phase stability between 4,4′-MDA and the
other two isomers, 2,2′-MDA and 2,4′-MDA. These isomers
were likely in low abundance in MDA samples; however, due to metastable
fragmentation, the researchers were likely unable to detect them.A more thorough understanding of MDA behavior in the gas phase
will lead to a more comprehensive characterization of industrial MDA
mixtures and better understanding of polyurethane fragmentation in
mass spectrometry. In future studies, we look to structurally characterize
larger MDA oligomers, complex MDA, and complex MDI mixtures using
not only ESI-IM-MS but also MALDI-IM-MS. Our results on the 2-ring
MDA compounds suggest IM-MS methods of characterizing larger multimers
and MDA mixtures will prove beneficial to fully understand not only
the molecular composition of the sample but also the structural differences
between isobaric species within the sample. These differences, invisible
to most polymer characterization methods, likely play a role in the
resulting gas-phase structures of the polyurethanes.
Authors: Iain Campuzano; Matthew F Bush; Carol V Robinson; Claire Beaumont; Keith Richardson; Hyungjun Kim; Hugh I Kim Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Brandon T Ruotolo; Justin L P Benesch; Alan M Sandercock; Suk-Joon Hyung; Carol V Robinson Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Kan Chen; Richard B Cole; Vicente Santa Cruz; Ernest W Blakeney; Mary F Kanz; Tammy R Dugas Journal: Toxicol Appl Pharmacol Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 4.219
Authors: Jody C May; Cody R Goodwin; Nichole M Lareau; Katrina L Leaptrot; Caleb B Morris; Ruwan T Kurulugama; Alex Mordehai; Christian Klein; William Barry; Ed Darland; Gregor Overney; Kenneth Imatani; George C Stafford; John C Fjeldsted; John A McLean Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Brett Harper; Elizabeth K Neumann; Sarah M Stow; Jody C May; John A McLean; Touradj Solouki Journal: Anal Chim Acta Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 6.558
Authors: Sarah M Stow; Tiffany M Crescentini; Jay G Forsythe; Jody C May; John A McLean; David M Hercules Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Sarah M Stow; Tiffany M Onifer; Jay G Forsythe; Hartmut Nefzger; Nicholas W Kwiecien; Jody C May; John A McLean; David M Hercules Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Tiffany M Crescentini; Sarah M Stow; Jay G Forsythe; Jody C May; John A McLean; David M Hercules Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Mark E Ridgeway; Jeremy J Wolff; Joshua A Silveira; Cheng Lin; Catherine E Costello; Melvin A Park Journal: Int J Ion Mobil Spectrom Date: 2016-03-29