ArticleInternational journal of mass spectrometry2025
Selecting the Correct Autosampler Vial and Insert to Improve Reproducibility and Accuracy in Mass Spectrometry Analyses.
Article in International journal of mass spectrometry, 2025. 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.
- A Legacy of Exposure: Lactational PFAS Transfer and Early-Life Accumulation in Northern Elephant Seals.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acquiring accurate and reproducible data is crucial for analytical chemists, however, sample storage and manipulation play a large role in achieving high-quality results. Autosampler vials and small-volume inserts are used for sample preparation and storage prior to mass spectrometry analyses, however, the utility, design, and material of these vary greatly. Here, we assessed differences in data reproducibility, sample loss, and physical differences among vials and inserts made of glass and polypropylene for combinations (vial/insert): glass/glass (GG), glass/polypropylene (GP), polypropylene/glass (PG), and polypropylene/polypropylene (PP). Six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were evaluated in 40:60 methanol:water with 3 mM ammonium acetate for 32 days to determine peak area reproducibility over time since PFAS do not degrade, therefore changes would most likely be due to adhesion and evaporation. On Day 1, the measured average peaks areas for the 6 PFAS were not statistically significant between any combinations, however, PP was the least reproducible (relative standard deviation >10%). All samples were then recapped and stored for one month at -20°C and reanalyzed to compare the peak areas between Day 1 to Day 32. All combinations showed >10% differences in peak area for at least 4 PFAS and both evaporation and adhesion were observed. While the greatest effects due to adhesion occurred in the glass inserts, the glass vials showed the least volume loss to evaporation. Thus, when adhesion and evaporation are considered together, the GP combination is recommended for PFAS analyses as the glass vial reduces evaporation rates, and the polypropylene insert minimizes adhesion.
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.