ArticleElectrophoresis2025
Flow Rate Determination of the Nanoflow Sheath Liquid CE-MS-Coupling Applying the nanoCEasy Interface.
Article in Electrophoresis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modulating proteoform charge states and signal intensities in LC-MS using a nanoflow sheath liquid interface.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Modulating proteoform charge states and signal intensities in LC-MS using a nanoflow sheath liquid interface.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Navigating the glycomics landscape with CE-MS: advances in sample preparation and analytical strategies.The Analyst · 2026Review
- Proteoform-Resolved Interaction Studies of Plasminogen by CZE-MS and SEC-MS Under Near-Native Conditions.Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS · 2026Article
- Sensitive Profiling of Human Milk Oligosaccharides in Human Colostrum and Breast Milk by Capillary Electrophoresis-Mass Spectrometry.Journal of separation science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, nanoflow sheath liquid (nanoSL) interfaces have been used more commonly for capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry (CE-MS) coupling due to their high sensitivity combined with flexibility in CE separation conditions. So far, the exact amount of sheath liquid (SL) and, thus, the dilution effect remain unknown due to the self-supplying type of the nanoSL interfaces. To quantify the SL flow rates, we present here an approach for the determination of the flow rate based on isotopically labeled standards using the nanoCEasy interface. SL and pumped CE flow are spiked with atrazine and d5-atrazine, respectively, enabling the determination of the total flow rate for different electrospray (ES) conditions. Generally, flow rates increase with higher ES voltages. Only at high ES voltages, larger emitter sizes lead to higher flow rates; for low voltages, flow rates are independent of emitter size. Additionally, smaller emitter sizes can generally be operated at lower ES voltages. Visualizing the ES, higher flow rates lead to a larger spray angle. Higher flow rates may decrease the signal intensity by diluting the CE-separated analytes. Indeed, this effect is observed for the flow-injected atrazine analytes and in the CE-MS analysis of an amino acid standard mix under aqueous acidic separation conditions. Therefore, lower flow rates are preferred for low electroosmotic flow (EOF) applications. However, in high EOF applications, higher voltages are required to prevent the accumulation of aqueous background electrolyte (BGE) at the emitter tip, which otherwise leads to peak broadening and inefficient ionization. Overall, the presented data enable the selection of stable and sensitive settings for nanoSL interfaces.
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.