This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mass spectrometry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Mass spectrometryWikipedia:WikiProject Mass spectrometryTemplate:WikiProject Mass spectrometryMass spectrometry articles
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the rating up to Start class. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone have any objection to me making some changes to this page? (1) I'd like to add a section for conventional ion-trap CID as this is a very common technique, but materially different to tandem mass spectrometry in a triple quad. In particular, because it usually (always?) uses resonant activation of the precursor ion, it is less likely to create fragments-of-fragments, giving simpler product spectra, that vary less with increased energy. These differences are practically relevant. (2) I'd like to rename Triple quadrupole mass spectrometers >> "Tandem mass spectrometers", explaining that triple-quadrupoles are a sub-set and the traditional name, but nowadays many instruments use a collision cell between Q1 and Q3 that is not itself a quadrupole. The name has stuck, but the design has moved on - not terribly important, but worth noting. (3) Given that I'm mentioning triples and ion-traps, I think it worth mentioning the difference between tandem-in-space and tandem-in-time. I'm thinking this is best done in the two sections, triple-quad and ion-trap. (4) I'd like to add to the mechanism paragraph, some mention about CID being (generally) low-energy and slow, and therefore more liable to form fragments after internal rearrangements, as compared to electron ionization, where it's more of a statistical process. CID forms fragments that are energetically favoured, while higher-energy methods can form fragments that are kinetically favoured. (Oops, must remember to use US spellings when I do it though. Favored.) (5) Some of this is easily referenced from other sources, but some isn't. I'm wondering if I should just write and reference what I can, and let the community judge whether the remainder needs references adding, or should be deleted as unreferenenceable personal writing.
Any thoughts about whether this is appropriate, or comments on things I ought to include/omit please post, otherwise I'll do it. 149.155.219.44 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There should be discussion of trap/in-time vs. in-space (triple quad, QTOF, sector, TOF/TOF). There also should be a discussion of high vs. low-energy CID (and HCD, MSE). And in-source CID and general reactions in plasmas not necessarily related to MS. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the information "HCD is High-energy CID" come from? This appears to be marketing speech. It is definitely not high-energy CID; in fact, TOF (in-space) CID spectra and Orbi HCD spectra look very, very similar at the same eV.
.jpg){kind=small}
