ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2024
Performance Comparison of Ambient Ionization Techniques Using a Single Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer for the Analysis of Amino Acids, Drugs, and Explosives.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection and characterization of explosives and explosives residues: a review 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Paper spray mass spectrometry for rapid toxicology targeted screening of emergency department samples: a research study.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2026Article
- Advancements in Ambient Ionisation Mass Spectrometry in 2024: An Annual Review.Analytical science advances · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The utilization of ambient ionization (AI) techniques for mass spectrometry (MS) has significantly grown due to their ability to facilitate rapid and direct sample analysis with minimal sample preparation. This study investigates the performance of various AI techniques, including atmospheric solids analysis probe (ASAP), thermal desorption corona discharge (TDCD), direct analysis in real time (DART), and paper spray coupled to a Waters QDa mass spectrometer. The focus is on evaluating the linearity, repeatability, and limit of detection (LOD) of these techniques across a range of analytes, including amino acids, drugs, and explosives. The results show that each AI technique exhibits distinct advantages and limitations. ASAP and DART cover high concentration ranges, which may make them suitable for semiquantitative analysis. TDCD demonstrates exceptional linearity and repeatability for most analytes, while paper spray offers surprising LODs despite its complex setup (between 80 and 400 pg for most analytes). The comparison with electrospray ionization (ESI) as a standard method shows that ambient ionization techniques can achieve competitive LODs for various compounds such as PETN (80 pg ESI vs 100 pg ASAP), TNT (9 pg ESI vs 4 pg ASAP), and RDX (4 pg ESI vs 10 pg ASAP). This study underscores the importance of selecting the appropriate ambient ionization technique based on the specific analytical requirements. This comprehensive evaluation contributes valuable insights into the selection and optimization of AI techniques for diverse analytical 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.