Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Determination of Ion Suppression

In many mass spectrometric analysis of complex samples, the ion suppression leads to a more difficult quantitative determination and often time-consuming sample preparation is required. It should, therefore, be studied more in advance whether there is a signal-reducing influence of the matrix. [Pg.8]

For the investigation of ion suppression, the sample solution (without analyte) is injected in the HPLC and a solution with the analyte (stable-isotopic labeled analyte, if no sample solution without analyte is available) is mixed behind the separation column via a T-piece to the eluate, and the mass trace of the analyte (or stable-isotopic labeled analyte) is analyzed during the total analysis time. After the column, the separated matrix ingredients are mixed with the analyte in the T-piece and are transported into the ion source. The change in intensity of the analyte mass trace before and after the injection of the matrix provides information about a possibly occurring ion suppression. [Pg.8]


Figure 1.5 shows the determination of ion suppression of a PAH analysis in urine with APCI-quadrupole-time of flight (QTOF). During the analysis time between 80 and 400 s, the mass trace is considerably diminished and reaches the normal... [Pg.8]

If the ion-exchange capacity of the separator column is sufficiently low and if dilute eluent is used, ion suppression is unnecessary. Also, anions of weak acids, such as borate, silicate, sulfide, and cyanide, cannot be determined with ion suppression, because these anions are converted into very weakly conductive products (such as H2S). [Pg.597]

An important consideration for LC-MS method development is the extent to which the analyte signal will be affected by the sample matrix [29], This situation is referred to as ion suppression. Ion suppression is the result of reduced ion signal from the sample matrix [45], Detailed studies performed by King et al. determined that ion suppression originates in solution [46,47], An increased chromatographic resolution combined with a more selective sample cleanup is perhaps the best way to reduce the impact of ion suppression. [Pg.44]

A computer program was compiled to work out the ray-tracing of UV detector of high performance capillary electrophoresis at the investigation of 5 and 6 (98MI59). The capacity factor of 5 at different temperature and at different mobile phase compositions was experimentally determined in bonded-phase chromatography with ion suppression (98MI15). [Pg.266]

A potential problem encountered in these determinations is the ion suppression encountered in the presence of polar/ionic interfering materials which compete with the analyte(s) for ionization (see Section 4.7.2 earlier). Many of these analyses therefore involve some degree of off-line purification and/or an appropriate form of chromatography. Since it is not unusual to encounter closely related compounds that are not easily separated, it is also not unusual to employ both of these approaches, as in the following example. This illustrates the use of HPLC as a method of purification and demonstrates that highly efficient separations are not always required for valuable analytical information to be obtained. [Pg.198]

A triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer with an electrospray interface is recommended for achieving the best sensitivity and selectivity in the quantitative determination of sulfonylurea herbicides. Ion trap mass spectrometers may also be used, but reduced sensitivity may be observed, in addition to more severe matrix suppression due to the increased need for sample concentration or to the space charge effect. Also, we have observed that two parent to daughter transitions cannot be obtained for some of the sulfonylurea compounds when ion traps are used in the MS/MS mode. Most electrospray LC/MS and LC/MS/MS analyses of sulfonylureas have been done in the positive ion mode with acidic HPLC mobile phases. The formation of (M - - H)+ ions in solution and in the gas phase under these conditions is favorable, and fragmentation or formation of undesirable adducts can easily be minimized. Owing to the acid-base nature of these molecules, negative ionization can also be used, with the formation of (M - H) ions at mobile phase pH values of approximately 5-7, but the sensitivity is often reduced as compared with the positive ion mode. [Pg.402]

For PMMA/additive dissolutions, it was not possible to identify any additive characteristic mass peaks, either by direct laser desorption or with matrix-assistance (dithranol, DHBA or sinapinic acid, 4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxy-cinnamic acid). This has again been ascribed to very strong interaction between PMMA and additives, which suppresses desorption of additive molecules. Also, partial depolymerisation of pho-tolytically labile PMMA by laser irradiation may play a role, which leads to saturation of the detector by PMMA fragment-ions and disappearance of additive mass peaks below noise level. Meyer-Dulheuer [55] has also reported MALDI-TOFMS analysis of a coating/2-ethylhexyldiphenylphosphate sample. Quantitative determination of the additives by means of MALDI-ToFMS proved impossible. Possibly the development of reproducible (automated) sample handling procedures or thin films might overcome this problem. [Pg.708]

To overcome the suppression effect of amines in the determination of ammonia, Hampson [56] investigated the effect of nitrite ions added either as nitrite or as nitrous acid. Figure 5.2 indicates that very considerable suppression by nitrite does occur, although it is not as strong as with any of the amines. Again, it is not great so long as the nitrite N concentration is less than the ammonia N concentration, but rapidly increases as the nitrite concentration exceeds the ammonia concentration. In fact, the nitrite modified method was found to be satisfactory in open seawater samples and polluted estuary waters. [Pg.133]

Total or partial ion suppression is a well-known LC-MS effect, which is induced by coeluting matrix components that can have a dramatic effect on the intensity of the analyte signal. As can be observed in Fig. 1, analyte suppression occurs as a consequence of the different matrix interferences present in waste-water samples, making the identification and/or quantification process difficult or unfeasible. Even when working under selection ion monitoring (SIM) conditions, these matrix effects can cause ion suppression in the detection of some analytes that are present at low levels of concentration, as seen in this figure. Several papers have reported this effect [30-32] and different alternatives to overcome these problems, such as the inclusion of a size-exclusion step [33] or sequential SPE [28], have been applied for the determination of pesticides in... [Pg.57]

To recognise ion suppression reactions, the AE blend was mixed together either (Fig. 2.5.13(a) and (b)) with the cationic quaternary ammonium surfactant, (c, d) the alkylamido betaine compound, or (e, f) the non-ionic FADA, respectively. Then the homologues of the pure blends and the constituents of the mixtures were quantified as presented in Fig. 2.5.13. Ionisation of their methanolic solutions was performed by APCI(+) in FIA-MS mode. The concentrations of the surfactants in the mixtures were identical with the surfactant concentrations of the blends in the methanolic solutions. Repeated injections of the pure AE blend (A 0-4.0 min), the selected compounds in the form of pure blends (B 4.0—8.8 min) and their mixtures (C 8.8— 14.0 min) were ionised and compounds were recorded in MID mode. For recognition and documentation of interferences, the results obtained were plotted as selected mass traces of AE blend (A b, d, f) and as selected mass traces of surfactant blends (B a, c, e). The comparison of signal heights (B vs. C and A vs. C) provides the information if a suppression or promotion has taken place and the areas under the signals allow semi-quantitative estimations of these effects. In this way the ionisation efficiencies for the pure blends and for the mixture of blends that had been determined by selected ion mass trace analysis as reproduced in Fig. 2.5.13, could be compared and estimated quite easily. [Pg.181]


See other pages where Determination of Ion Suppression is mentioned: [Pg.8]    [Pg.197]    [Pg.72]    [Pg.73]    [Pg.8]    [Pg.197]    [Pg.72]    [Pg.73]    [Pg.546]    [Pg.844]    [Pg.114]    [Pg.531]    [Pg.636]    [Pg.320]    [Pg.518]    [Pg.129]    [Pg.162]    [Pg.193]    [Pg.195]    [Pg.613]    [Pg.75]    [Pg.264]    [Pg.509]    [Pg.178]    [Pg.315]    [Pg.833]    [Pg.735]    [Pg.154]    [Pg.225]    [Pg.271]    [Pg.272]    [Pg.376]    [Pg.405]    [Pg.107]    [Pg.223]    [Pg.134]    [Pg.319]    [Pg.225]    [Pg.211]    [Pg.188]    [Pg.122]    [Pg.433]   


SEARCH



Ion determinations

Ion suppression

© 2024 chempedia.info