The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ionization and Fragmentation of Humic Substances in Electrospray Ionization Fourier Transform-Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry
Abstract
Electrospray ionization (ESI) was combined with ultra-high-resolution Fourier transform-ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR MS) to characterize complex humic and fulvic acid mixtures. Lower than expected molecular weight distributions previously observed for humics when analyzed by ESI-MS have fueled speculation about a bias in favor of low molecular weight. Multiply charged ions, ionization suppression, and sample fragmentation have all been suggested as sources of this low molecular weight bias. In this work, resolution of the individual components of humic mixtures within a 1 mass-to-charge unit window was accomplished by FTICR MS at 9.4 T. At mass resolving powers between 60,000 (high mass) and 120,000 (low mass), it was possible to determine that virtually all ions present in spectra of Suwannee River fulvic and humic acid are singly charged, thus eliminating inadequate accounting for multiply charged ions as a primary source of any low molecular weight bias. The high-resolution mass spectra also revealed the presence of molecular families containing ions that differ from each other in degree of saturation, functional group substitution (primarily CH vs N and CH4 vs O), and number of CH2 groups. Ionization suppression and ion fragmentation were addressed for humic and fulvic acid mixtures and well-characterized poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) mixtures with average molecular weights of 8000 and 10,000. Although these high molecular weight PEG mixtures fragment extensively under traditional positive-ion mode ESI conditions, similar fragmentation could not be confirmed for humic and fulvic acid mixtures.
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
Water Analysis: Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues
Richardson, S. D., & Ternes, T. A. (2014) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac500508t · Cited by 2,144
Molecular structure in soil humic substances: the new view
Sutton, R., & Sposito, G. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es050778q · Cited by 1,316
Zhao, C., Wang, C.-C., Li, J.-Q., Wang, C.-Y., Wang, P., & Pei, Z.-J. (2015) · RSC Advances · doi:10.1039/c5ra14993b · Cited by 61
Folorunsho, O., Bogush, A., & Kourtchev, I. (2023) · Analytical Methods · doi:10.1039/d2ay01574a · Cited by 21
Orlova, J., Amiri, F., Bourgeois, A. K., Buttle, J. M., Cherlet, E., Cuss, C. W., Devito, K. J., Emelko, M. B., Floyd, W. C., Foster, D. E., et al. (2024) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2023wr035196 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Stenson, A. C., Landing, W. M., Marshall, A. G., & Cooper, W. T.
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2002-07-24
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 4397-4409
- ISSN
- 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6882
- OpenAlex
- W2050065626
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.59
- 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.