ArticleForensic science international2018
A comparison between DART-MS and DSA-MS in the forensic analysis of writing inks.
Article in Forensic science international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applications of DESI and DART Mass Spectrometry in Forensic Science.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025Review
- A Model Iron Gall Ink: An In-Depth Study of Ageing Processes Involving Gallic Acid.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The characterization of disperse dyes in polyester fibers using DART mass spectrometry.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
- Comparison of LC-ESI, DART, and ASAP for the analysis of oligomers migration from biopolymer food packaging materials in food (simulants).Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Roadside Drug Testing Approaches.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Forensic applications of DART-MS: A review of recent literature.Forensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Interpol review of questioned documents 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Ambient ionization mass spectrometry is gaining momentum in forensic science laboratories because of its high speed of analysis, minimal sample preparation, and information-rich results. One such application of ambient ionization methodology includes the analysis of writing inks from questioned documents where colorants of interest may not be soluble in common solvents, rendering thin layer chromatography (TLC) and separation-mass spectrometry methods such as LC/MS (-MS) impractical. Ambient ionization mass spectrometry uses a variety of ionization techniques such as penning ionization in Direct Analysis in Real Time (DART), and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization in Direct Sample Analysis (DSA), and electrospray ionization in Desorption Electrospray Ionization (DESI). In this manuscript, two of the commonly used ambient ionization techniques are compared: Perkin Elmer DSA-MS and IonSense DART in conjunction with a JEOL AccuTOF MS. Both technologies were equally successful in analyzing writing inks and produced similar spectra. DSA-MS produced less background signal likely because of its closed source configuration; however, the open source configuration of DART-MS provided more flexibility for sample positioning for optimum sensitivity and thereby allowing smaller piece of paper containing writing ink to be analyzed. Under these conditions, the minimum sample required for DART-MS was 1mm strokes of ink on paper, whereas DSA-MS required a minimum of 3mm. Moreover, both techniques showed comparable repeatability. Evaluation of the analytical figures of merit, including sensitivity, linear dynamic range, and repeatability, for DSA-MS and DART-MS analysis is provided. To the forensic context of the technique, DART-MS was applied to the analysis of United States Secret Service ink samples directly on a sampling mesh, and the results were compared with DSA-MS of the same inks on paper. Unlike analysis using separation mass spectrometry, which requires sample preparation, both DART-MS and DSA-MS successfully analyzed writing inks with minimal sample preparation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.