ArticlePolymers2019
Comparison of Membrane Inlet and Capillary Introduction Miniature Mass Spectrometry for Liquid Analysis.
Article in Polymers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Chemistry for Developing Countries: Mass Spectrometry.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS) is commonly used for detecting the components in liquid samples. When a liquid sample flows through a membrane, certain analytes will permeate into the vacuum chamber of a mass spectrometer from the solution. The properties of the membrane directly determine the substances that can be detected by MIMS. A capillary introduction (CI) method we previously proposed can also be used to analyze gas and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) dissolved in liquids. When CI analysis is carried out, the sample is drawn into the mass spectrometer with no species discrimination. The performance of these two injection methods was compared in this study, and similar response time and limit of detection (LOD) can be acquired. Specifically, MIMS can provide better detection sensitivity for most inorganic gases and volatile organic compounds. In contrast, capillary introduction shows wider compatibility on analyte types and quantitative range, and it requires less sample consumption. As the two injection methods have comparable characteristics and can be coupled with a miniature mass spectrometer, factors such as cost, pollution, device size, and sample consumption should be comprehensively considered when choosing a satisfactory injection method in practical applications.
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.