Literature DB >> 25142325

Effect of mobile phase on electrospray ionization efficiency.

Jaanus Liigand1, Anneli Kruve, Ivo Leito, Marion Girod, Rodolphe Antoine.   

Abstract

Electrospray (ESI) ionization efficiencies (IE) of a set of 10 compounds differing by chemical nature, extent of ionization in solution (basicity), and by hydrophobicity (tetrapropylammonium and tetraethylammonium ion, triethylamine, 1-naphthylamine, N,N-dimethylaniline, diphenylphthalate, dimethylphtahalate, piperidine, pyrrolidine, pyridine) have been measured in seven mobile phases (three acetonitrile percentages 20%, 50%, and 80%, and three different pH-adjusting additives, 0.1% formic acid, 1 mM ammonia, pH 5.0 buffer combination) using the relative measurement method. MS parameters were optimized separately for each ion. The resulting relative IE data were converted into comparable logIE values by anchoring them to the logIE of tetrapropylammonium ion taking into account the differences of ionization in different solvents and thereby making the logIE values of the compounds comparable across solvents. The following conclusions were made from analysis of the data. The compounds with pK(a) values in the range of the solution pH values displayed higher IE at lower pH. The sensitivity of IE towards pH depends on hydrophobicity being very strong with pyridine, weaker with N,N-dimethylaniline, and weakest with 1-naphthylamine. IEs of tetraalkylammonium ions and triethylamine were expectedly insensitive towards solution pH. Surprisingly high IEs of phthalate esters were observed. The differences in solutions with different acetonitrile content and similar pH were smaller compared with the pH effects. These results highlight the importance of hydrophobicity in electrospray and demonstrate that high hydrophobicity can sometimes successfully compensate for low basicity.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 25142325     DOI: 10.1007/s13361-014-0969-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom        ISSN: 1044-0305            Impact factor:   3.109


  18 in total

1.  Predicting electrospray response from chromatographic retention time.

Authors:  N B Cech; J R Krone; C G Enke
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2001-01-15       Impact factor: 6.986

2.  Importance of gas-phase proton affinities in determining the electrospray ionization response for analytes and solvents.

Authors:  M H Amad; N B Cech; G S Jackson; C G Enke
Journal:  J Mass Spectrom       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.982

3.  Relating electrospray ionization response to nonpolar character of small peptides.

Authors:  N B Cech; C G Enke
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2000-07-01       Impact factor: 6.986

4.  Profiling an electrospray plume by laser-induced fluorescence and Fraunhofer diffraction combined to mass spectrometry: influence of size and composition of droplets on charge-state distributions of electrosprayed proteins.

Authors:  Marion Girod; Xavier Dagany; Véronique Boutou; Michel Broyer; Rodolphe Antoine; Philippe Dugourd; Alex Mordehai; Craig Love; Mark Werlich; John Fjeldsted; George Stafford
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2012-01-16       Impact factor: 3.676

5.  Extension of the self-consistent spectrophotometric basicity scale in acetonitrile to a full span of 28 pKa units: unification of different basicity scales.

Authors:  Ivari Kaljurand; Agnes Kütt; Lilli Sooväli; Toomas Rodima; Vahur Mäemets; Ivo Leito; Ilmar A Koppel
Journal:  J Org Chem       Date:  2005-02-04       Impact factor: 4.354

6.  Electrospray ionization efficiency scale of organic compounds.

Authors:  Merit Oss; Anneli Kruve; Koit Herodes; Ivo Leito
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 6.986

7.  Ejection of solvated ions from electrosprayed methanol/water nanodroplets studied by molecular dynamics simulations.

Authors:  Elias Ahadi; Lars Konermann
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 15.419

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

Authors:  Brian A Huffman; Michael L Poltash; Christine A Hughey
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 6.986

9.  Spectrofluorometric studies of the lipid probe, nile red.

Authors:  P Greenspan; S D Fowler
Journal:  J Lipid Res       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 5.922

10.  Towards the electrospray ionization mass spectrometry ionization efficiency scale of organic compounds.

Authors:  Ivo Leito; Koit Herodes; Merit Huopolainen; Kristina Virro; Allan Künnapas; Anneli Kruve; Risto Tanner
Journal:  Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.419

View more
  12 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.  Adduct Formation in ESI/MS by Mobile Phase Additives.

Authors:  Anneli Kruve; Karl Kaupmees
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.109

4.  The Evolution of Electrospray Generated Droplets is Not Affected by Ionization Mode.

Authors:  Piia Liigand; Agnes Heering Suu; Karl Kaupmees; Ivo Leito; Marion Girod; Rodolphe Antoine; Anneli Kruve
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 3.109

5.  Non-aqueous electrophoresis integrated with electrospray ionization mass spectrometry on a thiol-ene polymer-based microchip device.

Authors:  Nan Lu; Nickolaj J Petersen; Andreas C Kretschmann; Jörg P Kutter
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 4.142

6.  Quantitative non-targeted analysis: Bridging the gap between contaminant discovery and risk characterization.

Authors:  James P McCord; Louis C Groff; Jon R Sobus
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 9.621

7.  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

8.  Electrospray Ionization Efficiency Is Dependent on Different Molecular Descriptors with Respect to Solvent pH and Instrumental Configuration.

Authors:  Andreas Kiontke; Ariana Oliveira-Birkmeier; Andreas Opitz; Claudia Birkemeyer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Response in Ambient Low Temperature Plasma Ionization Compared to Electrospray and Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization for Mass Spectrometry.

Authors:  Andreas Kiontke; Susan Billig; Claudia Birkemeyer
Journal:  Int J Anal Chem       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 1.885

10.  Understanding the electrospray ionization response factors of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Authors:  Jeffrey R Enders; Grace M O'Neill; Jerry L Whitten; David C Muddiman
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 4.478

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.