| Title |
Comparison of Different Ion Mobility Setups Using Poly (Ethylene Oxide) PEO Polymers: Drift Tube, TIMS, and T-Wave
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13361-017-1822-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean R. N. Haler, Philippe Massonnet, Fabien Chirot, Christopher Kune, Clothilde Comby-Zerbino, Jan Jordens, Maarten Honing, Ynze Mengerink, Johann Far, Philippe Dugourd, Edwin De Pauw |
| Abstract |
Over the years, polymer analyses using ion mobility-mass spectrometry (IM-MS) measurements have been performed on different ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) setups. In order to be able to compare literature data taken on different IM(-MS) instruments, ion heating and ion temperature evaluations have already been explored. Nevertheless, extrapolations to other analytes are difficult and thus straightforward same-sample instrument comparisons seem to be the only reliable way to make sure that the different IM(-MS) setups do not greatly change the gas-phase behavior. We used a large range of degrees of polymerization (DP) of poly(ethylene oxide) PEO homopolymers to measure IMS drift times on three different IM-MS setups: a homemade drift tube (DT), a trapped (TIMS), and a traveling wave (T-Wave) IMS setup. The drift time evolutions were followed for increasing polymer DPs (masses) and charge states, and they are found to be comparable and reproducible on the three instruments. ᅟ. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 26% |
| Researcher | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 23 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#2,946
of 3,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,822
of 334,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#32
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,835 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.