2015
DOI: 10.1039/c4an01101e
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Review on Ion Mobility Spectrometry. Part 2: hyphenated methods and effects of experimental parameters

Abstract: Ion Mobility Spectrometry (IMS) is a widely used and ‘well-known’ technique of ion separation in gaseous phase based on the differences of ion mobilities under an electric field. This technique has received increased interest over the last several decades as evidenced by the pace and advances of new IMS devices available. In this review we explore the hyphenated techniques that are used with IMS, especially mass spectrometry as identification approach and multi-capillary column as pre-separation approach. Also… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
114
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 145 publications
(116 citation statements)
references
References 150 publications
(307 reference statements)
2
114
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous contributions highlighted a broad range of application of IMS to the separation of peptides and proteins including the study of protein conformation dynamics (17)(18)(19)(20)(21). IMS can be divide into two broad categories that regroup drift-tube ion mobility spectrometry (DTIMS) and differential mobility spectrometry (DMS), the latter being mostly represented by high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous contributions highlighted a broad range of application of IMS to the separation of peptides and proteins including the study of protein conformation dynamics (17)(18)(19)(20)(21). IMS can be divide into two broad categories that regroup drift-tube ion mobility spectrometry (DTIMS) and differential mobility spectrometry (DMS), the latter being mostly represented by high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the GC-MS method is not suitable for breath analysis using a large number of samples due to its complicated sample preparation procedure, time-consuming test process, and high instrumentation and operational costs. In addition to the conventional GC-MS method, several relatively new MSbased analytical techniques including proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS), 11,12 ion mobility spectroscopy (IMS), 13,14 and selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) [15][16][17][18] have been developed rapidly for real-time online breath analysis. Breath analysis is also conducted by using electrical sensors, [19][20][21] which are comparatively inexpensive and smaller in size, but the issues with detection selectivity and requirement of frequent baseline calibration remain to be further addressed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our calculated CCSs for individual [SDGRG + H] + and [GRGDS + H] + (from pure samples) are within the 3% error range of the previously reported values for the same peptide samples calculated using DTIM-MS. 69 Slight differences in CCS measurements may be due to several factors including (but not limited to) differences in IM cell humidity, 70,71 mixture of gasses between the trap/transfer and IM cells ( i.e ., changing the reduced mass and average drift gas polarizability), 45,69,7274 accuracy and precision of calibrants’ CCSs, 69 and/or other experimental condition variations. 10 CCSs of deconvoluted [SDGRG + H] + and [GRGDS + H] + without AT corrections were 204. 9 ± 3.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1,2 CCS measurements in DTIM-MS are relatively straightforward because ion drift times ( t D ) are directly proportional to their CCS. 2,10 However, in TWIM-MS (where a non-uniform electric field is used to move ions) ions’ CCS values are proportional to t D x , where “ x ” is an empirically-derived parameter that must be calculated from the analysis of calibrants with known CCS values. 11 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation