The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Even‐electron ions: a systematic study of the neutral species lost in the dissociation of quasi‐molecular ions
Abstract
The collision‐induced dissociations of the even‐electron [M + H]+ and/or [M − H]− ions of 121 model compounds (mainly small aromatic compounds with one to three functional groups) ionized by electrospray ionization (ESI) or atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) have been studied using an ion trap instrument, and the results are compared with the literature data. While some functional groups (such as COOH, COOCH 3, SO 3 H in the negative ion mode, or NO 2 in both the positive and negative ion modes) generally promote the loss of neutrals that are characteristic as well as specific, other functional groups (such as COOH in the positive ion mode) give rise to the loss of neutrals that are characteristic, but not specific. Finally, functional groups such as OH and NH 2 in aromatic compounds do not lead to the loss of a neutral that reflects the presence of these substituents. In general, the dissociation of [M + H]+ and [M − H]− ions generated from aliphatic compounds or compounds containing an aliphatic moiety obeys the even‐electron rule (loss of a molecule), but deviations from this rule (loss of a radical) are sometimes observed for aromatic compounds, in particular for nitroaromatic compounds. Thermochemical data and ab initio calculations at the CBS‐QB3 level of theory provide an explanation for these exceptions. When comparing the dissociation behaviour of the even‐electron [M + H]+ and/or [M − H]− ions (generated by ESI or APCI) with that of the corresponding odd‐electron [M]+ ions (generated by electron ionization, EI), three cases may be distinguished: (1) the dissociation of the two ionic species differs completely; (2) the dissociation involves the loss of a common neutral, yielding product ions differing in mass by one Da, or (3) the dissociations lead to a common product ion. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Electrospray Ionization for Mass Spectrometry of Large Biomolecules
Fenn, J. B., Mann, M., Meng, C. K., Wong, S. F., & Whitehouse, C. M. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2675315 · Cited by 7,634
Cited by
Demarque, D. P., Crotti, A. E. M., Vessecchi, R., Lopes, J. L. C., & Lopes, N. P. (2016) · Natural Product Reports · doi:10.1039/c5np00073d · Cited by 513
Competitive fragmentation modeling of ESI-MS/MS spectra for putative metabolite identification
Allen, F., Greiner, R., & Wishart, D. (2015) · Metabolomics · doi:10.1007/s11306-014-0676-4 · Cited by 398
Liu, H., Bruton, T. A., Li, W., Buren, J. V., Prasse, C., Doyle, F. M., & Sedlak, D. L. (2016) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b04815 · Cited by 326
Yu, L., Smith, J., Laskin, A., Anastasio, C., Laskin, J., & Zhang, Q. (2014) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-14-13801-2014 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Levsen, K., Schiebel, H., Terlouw, J. K., Jobst, K. J., Elend, M., Preiß, A., Thiele, H., & Ingendoh, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Mass Spectrometry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-02
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1024-1044
- ISSN
- 1076-5174 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-9888
- OpenAlex
- W1992052682
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.