Characterization of a nanoflow sheath liquid interface and comparison to a sheath liquid and a sheathless porous-tip interface for CE-ESI-MS in positive and negative ionization
Abstract
Coupling of capillary electrophoresis to electrospray mass spectrometry still remains challenging and a topic of research to find the best interface regarding sensitivity, robustness, and ease of use. Here, a nanoflow sheath liquid interface for CE-ESI-MS is presented and compared to both a standard triple-tube sheath liquid and a porous-tip sheathless interface for three groups of analytes. The nanoflow sheath liquid interface with a separation capillary inserted into a glass emitter was initially characterized to facilitate optimization and method development. Implementation of a shut-off valve, syringe pump, and inline filter enabled easy handling and fast analyses, repeatable both in positive and negative modes (intra-day RSD of 6.6 to 12.0%). The same setup was used for sheathless interfacing by exchanging the emitter and using a porous etched tip separation capillary. Both nanoflow interfaces showed similar performance. Average peak areas using the nanoflow sheath liquid interface were a factor of 38 for 6 organic acids in negative mode, 114 and 36 for the light and heavy chain of a monoclonal antibody, and 13 higher for peptides in positive mode compared to the triple-tube interface. This first direct comparison of the three most common interfaces exhibits a strong improvement in sensitivity to the same extent for both nanoflow interfaces, where sheath liquid interfaces offer full flexibility in method development.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The porous tip sheathless interface introduced by the Moini group is the most popular sheathless prototype in proteomics research.
“The porous tip sheathless interface was introduced by the Moini group and is the most popular sheathless prototype in proteomics research55.”
From Recent trends of capillary electrophoresis‐mass spectrometry in proteomics research (2019) · cites this paper as [55]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Haselberg, R., de Jong, G. J., & Somsen, G. W. (2013) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac303158f · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Dai, J., Lamp, J., Xia, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2018) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.7b04608 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
CE–ESI‐MS for bottom‐up proteomics: Advances in separation, interfacing and applications
Heemskerk, A. A. M., Deelder, A. M., & Mayboroda, O. A. (2016) · Mass Spectrometry Reviews · doi:10.1002/mas.21432 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Guo, X., Fillmore, T. L., Gao, Y., & Tang, K. (2016) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.5b04912 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Chen, D., Shen, X., & Sun, L. (2018) · Analytica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.aca.2018.01.037 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Wang, C., Lee, C. S., Smith, R. D., & Tang, K. (2013) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac401202c · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recent trends of capillary electrophoresis‐mass spectrometry in proteomics research
Gomes, F. P., & Yates, J. R. (2019) · Mass Spectrometry Reviews · doi:10.1002/mas.21599 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
- Authors
- Höcker, O., Montealegre, C., & Neusüß, C.
- Affiliations
- Hochschule Aalen (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Neusüß, Christian
- Venue
- Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
- Published
- 2018-06-26
- Volume
- 410
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 5265-5275
- ISSN
- 1618-2642 (ISSN-L)
- 1618-2650
- OpenAlex
- W2810794291
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 3.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OPUS (Aalen University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrohydrodynamics and Fluid Dynamics
- Keywords
- positive and negative ionization, organic acids, monoclonal antibodies, peptides, sensitivity comparison, method development
- MeSH terms
- Antibodies, Monoclonal, Equipment Design, Peptides, Porosity, Electrophoresis, Capillary, Spectrometry, Mass, Electrospray Ionization
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
