{"title":"Electrospray ionisation suppression in aquatic dissolved organic matter studies – Investigation via liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry","authors":"Jeffrey A. Hawkes","doi":"10.1016/j.orggeochem.2024.104852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Ionisation suppression is a persistent issue in electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry, which decreases the signal of co-eluting analytes. In non-targeted analysis, where analyte and organic matrix identity is unknown, this poses a very challenging analytical problem when it comes to quantitatively assessing differences between samples, including in a compositional sense. In this study, I demonstrate the problems that arise due to ionisation suppression using a very simple sample mixing scheme between a fresh, metabolite rich sample (a leaf leachate) and a forest pond water. Samples were analysed after solid phase extraction on Agilent PPL and using high performance liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray ionisation – Orbitrap mass spectrometry, charged aerosol detector and diode array detector, the latter two allowing quantification of eluting material. I found that more than half of the well-resolved analytes expected to be present (at equal concentration) were completely lost from detection after mixing with pond water DOM. The average recovery of analytical signal (i.e., the signal weighted average), was about 50%, and was highly variable between analytes. Ionisation suppression also affected the signal obtained from the geochemical background DOM, and material recovery decreased slightly when mixing samples and extracting at a higher volume on PPL. Overall, the results showed that ionisation suppression is an extremely important problem for comparison of biogeochemical samples, even when only considering presence and absence of detected features. A multi detector approach and liquid chromatographic separation adds great value in comparison to use of only high resolution mass spectrometry (in direct infusion mode).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":400,"journal":{"name":"Organic Geochemistry","volume":"196 ","pages":"Article 104852"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638024001177/pdfft?md5=ea44ab4b9d9bda29a26c158d352410bc&pid=1-s2.0-S0146638024001177-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organic Geochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638024001177","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Ionisation suppression is a persistent issue in electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry, which decreases the signal of co-eluting analytes. In non-targeted analysis, where analyte and organic matrix identity is unknown, this poses a very challenging analytical problem when it comes to quantitatively assessing differences between samples, including in a compositional sense. In this study, I demonstrate the problems that arise due to ionisation suppression using a very simple sample mixing scheme between a fresh, metabolite rich sample (a leaf leachate) and a forest pond water. Samples were analysed after solid phase extraction on Agilent PPL and using high performance liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray ionisation – Orbitrap mass spectrometry, charged aerosol detector and diode array detector, the latter two allowing quantification of eluting material. I found that more than half of the well-resolved analytes expected to be present (at equal concentration) were completely lost from detection after mixing with pond water DOM. The average recovery of analytical signal (i.e., the signal weighted average), was about 50%, and was highly variable between analytes. Ionisation suppression also affected the signal obtained from the geochemical background DOM, and material recovery decreased slightly when mixing samples and extracting at a higher volume on PPL. Overall, the results showed that ionisation suppression is an extremely important problem for comparison of biogeochemical samples, even when only considering presence and absence of detected features. A multi detector approach and liquid chromatographic separation adds great value in comparison to use of only high resolution mass spectrometry (in direct infusion mode).
期刊介绍:
Organic Geochemistry serves as the only dedicated medium for the publication of peer-reviewed research on all phases of geochemistry in which organic compounds play a major role. The Editors welcome contributions covering a wide spectrum of subjects in the geosciences broadly based on organic chemistry (including molecular and isotopic geochemistry), and involving geology, biogeochemistry, environmental geochemistry, chemical oceanography and hydrology.
The scope of the journal includes research involving petroleum (including natural gas), coal, organic matter in the aqueous environment and recent sediments, organic-rich rocks and soils and the role of organics in the geochemical cycling of the elements.
Sedimentological, paleontological and organic petrographic studies will also be considered for publication, provided that they are geochemically oriented. Papers cover the full range of research activities in organic geochemistry, and include comprehensive review articles, technical communications, discussion/reply correspondence and short technical notes. Peer-reviews organised through three Chief Editors and a staff of Associate Editors, are conducted by well known, respected scientists from academia, government and industry. The journal also publishes reviews of books, announcements of important conferences and meetings and other matters of direct interest to the organic geochemical community.