<b>Comparison of Different Ion Mobility Setups Using Poly (Ethylene Oxide) PEO Polymers: Drift Tube, TIMS, and T-Wave</b>

Haler, Jean; Massonnet, Philippe; Chirot, Fabien; Kune, Christopher; Comby‐Zerbino, Clothilde; Jordens, Jan; Honing, Maarten; Mengerink, Ynze; Far, Johann; Dugourd, Philippe; Pauw, Edwin De

doi:10.1007/s13361-017-1822-9

Cited by 32 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second Na ion possibly prevents the structural folding (intra‐molecular bridge between the two antennae) of ions due to intra‐molecular interactions and thus increases their transition time in an ion mobility cell. Similar differences in the mobility of the sodium adducts have been reported by Haler et al for polyethylene oxide polymers complexed by one to four Na cations . It is worth noting that in the Synapt HDMS instrument the transition time of ions is proportional to their mobility and their CCS (t ∝ K 0 ∝ CCS), whereas in the TIMS‐TOF setup the time of detection is proportional to the CCS and to the inverse of the ion mobility (t ∝ CCS ∝ 1/K 0 ) …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…the TIMS-TOF systems to separate and study adduct ions using the by one to four Na cations. 23 It is worth noting that in the Synapt HDMS instrument the transition time of ions is proportional to their mobility and their CCS (t ∝ K 0 ∝ CCS), whereas in the TIMS-TOF setup the time of detection is proportional to the CCS and to the inverse of the ion mobility (t ∝ CCS ∝ 1/K 0 ). 19 When it comes to the separation power of the instruments, not unexpectedly significant differences between the Synapt HDMS and TIMS-TOF systems were observed, while in general the performance of the Synapt HDMS G1 and G2Si was rather similar (Figure 3).…”

Section: Separation Based On Imsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adduct ion formation as a tool for the molecular structure assessment of ten isomers in traveling wave and trapped ion mobility spectrometry

Hadavi

Lange

Jordens

et al. 2019

Rapid Comm Mass Spectrometry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale The separation of isomeric compounds with major differences in their physiochemical and pharmacokinetic properties is of particular importance in pharmaceutical R&D. However, the structural assessment and separation of these compounds with current analytical techniques and methods are still a challenge. In this study, we describe strategies to separate the various structural and stereo‐isomers. Methods The separation of ten structural and stereo‐isomers was investigated using Trapped and Travelling Wave ion mobility spectrometry (TIMS and TWIMS). Different strategies including adduct ion formation with Na, Li, Ag and Cs as well as fragmentation before and after the ion mobility cell were applied to separate the isomeric compounds. Results All the counter ions (in particular Na) strongly coordinated with the test analytes in all the IMS systems. The highest resolving power was achieved for the sodium and lithium adducts using TIMS‐time‐of‐flight (TOF). However, some separation was attained on a Synapt HDMS system with its unique potential to monitor the ion mobility of the product ions. The elution order of the adduct ions was the same in all instruments, in which, unexpectedly, the para‐substituted isomer of the [M + Na]+ species had the lowest collision cross section followed by the meta‐ and ortho‐isomers. Conclusions The formation of adduct ions could facilitate the separation of structural and even stereo‐isomers by generating different molecular conformations. In addition, fragmenting isomers before or after the ion mobility cell is a valuable strategy to separate and also to assess the structures of adducts and different conformers.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Separation Based On Imsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adduct ion formation as a tool for the molecular structure assessment of ten isomers in traveling wave and trapped ion mobility spectrometry

Hadavi

Lange

Jordens

et al. 2019

Rapid Comm Mass Spectrometry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The hexakis‐fluoropropoxyphospahzines (Agilent Tunemix calibration standard (Stow et al, )) and polyalanine (Allen et al, ) satisfy the criteria and are compatible with ESI. Several other synthetic polymers (Duez et al, ; Haler et al, , ) or supramolecular assemblies (Hupin et al, ) have recently been proposed as alternative calibrants. Finding new reference materials is currently a very active area of research, and it is expected that a few more years of testing will be necessary to reach consensus on the species and their mobilities.…”

Section: Reference Materials For Ion Mobilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for reporting ion mobility Mass Spectrometry measurements

Gabelica

Shvartsburg

Afonso

et al. 2019

Mass Spectrometry Reviews

Self Cite

337

464

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we present a guide to ion mobility mass spectrometry experiments, which covers both linear and nonlinear methods: what is measured, how the measurements are done, and how to report the results, including the uncertainties of mobility and collision cross section values. The guide aims to clarify some possibly confusing concepts, and the reporting recommendations should help researchers, authors and reviewers to contribute comprehensive reports, so that the ion mobility data can be reused more confidently. Starting from the concept of the definition of the measurand, we emphasize that (i) mobility values ( K 0 ) depend intrinsically on ion structure, the nature of the bath gas, temperature, and E / N ; (ii) ion mobility does not measure molecular surfaces directly, but collision cross section (CCS) values are derived from mobility values using a physical model; (iii) methods relying on calibration are empirical (and thus may provide method‐dependent results) only if the gas nature, temperature or E / N cannot match those of the primary method. Our analysis highlights the urgency of a community effort toward establishing primary standards and reference materials for ion mobility, and provides recommendations to do so. © 2019 The Authors. Mass Spectrometry Reviews Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…The polymer chain end functions, the sequence of copolymers, MS/MS degradation and depolymerization mechanisms, as well as contamination analyses in complex polymer samples could thus be studied. More recently, coupling of MS techniques such as ion mobility-mass spectrometry (IM-MS) further enabled the analysis of complex samples [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. The polymers could be differentiated according to their size and shape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gas-Phase Dynamics of Collision Induced Unfolding, Collision Induced Dissociation, and Electron Transfer Dissociation-Activated Polymer Ions

Haler

Massonnet

Far

et al. 2018

J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polymer characterizations are often performed using mass spectrometry (MS). Aside from MS and different tandem MS (MS/MS) techniques, ion mobility-mass spectrometry (IM-MS) has been recently added to the inventory of characterization technique. However, only few studies have focused on the reproducibility and robustness of polymer IM-MS analyses. Here, we perform collisional and electron-mediated activation of polymer ions before measuring IM drift times, collision cross-sections (CCS), or reduced ion mobilities (K 0 ). The resulting IM behavior of different activated product ions is then compared to non-activated native intact polymer ions. First, we analyzed collision induced unfolding (CIU) of precursor ions to test the robustness of polymer ion shapes. Then, we focused on fragmentation product ions to test for shape retentions from the precursor ions: cation ejection species (CES) and product ions with m/z and charge state values identical to native intact polymer ions. The CES species are formed using both collision induced dissociation (CID) and electron transfer dissociation (ETD, formally ETnoD) experiments. Only small drift time, CCS, or K 0 deviations between the activated/formed ions are observed compared to the native intact polymer ions. The polymer ion shapes seem to depend solely on their mass and charge state. The experiments were performed on three synthetic homopolymers: poly(ethoxy phosphate) (PEtP), poly(2-n-propyl-2-oxazoline) (Pn-PrOx), and poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO). These results confirm the robustness of polymer ion CCSs for IM calibration, especially singly charged polymer ions. The results are also discussed in the context of polymer analyses, CCS predictions, and probing ion-drift gas interaction potentials.

show abstract

Comparison of Different Ion Mobility Setups Using Poly (Ethylene Oxide) PEO Polymers: Drift Tube, TIMS, and T-Wave

Cited by 32 publications

References 32 publications

Adduct ion formation as a tool for the molecular structure assessment of ten isomers in traveling wave and trapped ion mobility spectrometry

Adduct ion formation as a tool for the molecular structure assessment of ten isomers in traveling wave and trapped ion mobility spectrometry

Recommendations for reporting ion mobility Mass Spectrometry measurements

Gas-Phase Dynamics of Collision Induced Unfolding, Collision Induced Dissociation, and Electron Transfer Dissociation-Activated Polymer Ions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About