Premium
Comparison of linear intrascan and interscan dynamic ranges of Orbitrap and ion‐mobility time‐of‐flight mass spectrometers
Author(s) -
Kaufmann Anton,
Walker Stephan
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
rapid communications in mass spectrometry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.528
H-Index - 136
eISSN - 1097-0231
pISSN - 0951-4198
DOI - 10.1002/rcm.7981
Subject(s) - orbitrap , dynamic range , chemistry , mass spectrometry , quadrupole ion trap , analytical chemistry (journal) , range (aeronautics) , ion , high dynamic range , calibration , ion trap , chromatography , materials science , optics , physics , statistics , mathematics , organic chemistry , composite material
Rationale The linear intrascan and interscan dynamic ranges of mass spectrometers are important in metabolome and residue analysis. A large linear dynamic range is mandatory if both low‐ and high‐abundance ions have to be detected and quantitated in heavy matrix samples. These performance criteria, as provided by modern high‐resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS), were systematically investigated. Methods The comparison included two generations of Orbitraps, and an ion mobility quadrupole time‐of‐flight (QTOF) system In addition, different scan modes, as provided by the utilized instruments, were investigated. Calibration curves of different compounds covering a concentration range of five orders of magnitude were measured to evaluate the linear interscan dynamic range. The linear intrascan dynamic range and the resulting mass accuracy were evaluated by repeating these measurements in the presence of a very intense background. Results Modern HRMS instruments can show linear dynamic ranges of five orders of magnitude. Often, however, the linear dynamic range is limited by the detection capability (sensitivity and selectivity) and by the electrospray ionization. Orbitraps, as opposed to TOF instruments, show a reduced intrascan dynamic range. This is due to the limited C‐trap and Orbitrap capacity. The tested TOF instrument shows poorer mass accuracies than the Orbitraps. In contrast, hyphenation with an ion‐mobility device seems not to affect the linear dynamic range. Conclusions The linear dynamic range of modern HRMS instrumentation has been significantly improved. This also refers to the virtual absence of systematic mass shifts at high ion abundances. The intrascan dynamic range of the current Orbitrap technology may still be a limitation when analyzing complex matrix extracts. On the other hand, the linear dynamic range is not only limited by the detector technology, but can also be shortened by peripheral devices, where the ionization and transfer of ions take place.