Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20181493›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2010

Comparison of the internal energy deposition of direct analysis in real time and electrospray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry.

Glenn A Harris, Dana M Hostetler, Christina Y Hampton, Facundo M Fernández

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Rapid detection ofForensic toxicology · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Glenn A HarrisSchool of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30317, USA.
Dana M Hostetler
Christina Y Hampton
Facundo M Fernández

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The internal energy (E(int)) distributions of a series of p-substituted benzylpyridinium ions generated by both direct analysis in real time (DART) and electrospray ionization (ESI) were compared using the "survival yield" method. DART mean E(int) values at gas flow rates of 2, 4, and 6 L min(-1), and at set temperatures of 175, 250, and 325 degrees C were in the 1.92-2.21 eV range. ESI mean E(int) at identical temperatures in aqueous and 50% methanol solutions ranged between 1.71 and 1.96 eV, and 1.53 and 1.63 eV, respectively. Although the results indicated that ESI is a "softer" ionization technique than DART, there was overlap between the two techniques for the particular time-of-flight mass spectrometer used. As a whole, there was an increase in E(int) with increasing reactive and drying gas temperatures for DART and ESI, respectively, indicating thermal ion activation. Three dimensional computational fluid dynamic simulations in combination with direct temperature measurements within the DART ionization region revealed complex inversely coupled fluid-thermal phenomena affecting ion E(int) values during atmospheric transport. Primarily, that DART gas temperature in the ionization region was appreciably less than the set gas temperature of DART due to the set gas flow rates. There was no evidence of E(int) deposition pathways from metastable-stimulated desorption, but fragmentation induced by high-energy helium metastables was observed at the highest gas flow rates and temperatures.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.