The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reduction of Signal Suppression Effects in ESI-MS Using a Nanosplitting Device
Abstract
Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry is a valuable tool in the identification and quantification of drug metabolites in biological fluids. However, there are many instances where matrix components present in these fluids interfere with analyte detection and prevent the acquisition of accurate or complete results. In some instances, the matrix can suppress ionization to such an extent that analytes are completely undetectable by MS. In this work, we investigate how ionization and ion-transfer efficiencies are affected by drastically reducing the flow into the MS. A postcolumn concentric flow-splitting device was constructed to allow the measurement of analyte signal and ionization suppression across a range of flow rates (0.1-200 microL/min). Using this device, the effects of flow rate on signal intensity and ionization suppression were measured in analytical experiments that included flow injection analysis MS, postcolumn addition LC-MS, and on-line LC-MS analysis of metabolites generated from rat liver microsomes. The device used to deliver 0.1 microL/min flows is referred to as a nanosplitter because it achieved high split ratios (2000:1), producing flow rates comparable to those observed in nanoelectrospray. The nanosplitter maintained chromatographic integrity with high fidelity and allowed the direct comparison of analyte signal across a range of flow rates (0.1-200 microL/min). A significant improvement in concentration and mass sensitivity as well as a reduction in signal suppression is observed when the performance at 200 versus 0.1 microL/min flow rate is compared. Using this specially designed concentric splitting device, the advantages of ultralow flow ESI were easily exploited for applications employing large bore chromatography.
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
Cited by
Ion suppression; A critical review on causes, evaluation, prevention and applications
Furey, A., Moriarty, M., Bane, V., Kinsella, B., & Lehane, M. (2013) · Talanta · doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2013.03.048 · Cited by 521
Mass spectrometric based approaches in urine metabolomics and biomarker discovery
Khamis, M. M., Adamko, D. J., & El‐Aneed, A. (2017) · Mass Spectrometry Reviews · doi:10.1002/mas.21455 · Cited by 342
CE–MS for proteomics: Advances in interface development and application
Ramautar, R., Heemskerk, A. A. M., Hensbergen, P. J., Deelder, A. M., Busnel, J.-M., & Mayboroda, O. A. (2012) · Journal of Proteomics · doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2012.04.050 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Gangl, E. T., Annan, M., Spooner, N., & Vouros, P.
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2001-10-30
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 5635-5644
- ISSN
- 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6882
- OpenAlex
- W2032680924
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.97
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reduction of Signal Suppression Effects in ESI-MS Using a Nanosplitting Device. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ac010501i
- The paper
- Gangl, E. T., Annan, M., Spooner, N., & Vouros, P. (2001). Reduction of Signal Suppression Effects in ESI-MS Using a Nanosplitting Device. Analytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac010501i
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.