| Title |
Spontaneous Charge Separation and Sublimation Processes are Ubiquitous in Nature and in Ionization Processes in Mass Spectrometry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13361-017-1788-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Trimpin, I-Chung Lu, Stephan Rauschenbach, Khoa Hoang, Beixi Wang, Nicholas D. Chubatyi, Wen-Jing Zhang, Ellen D. Inutan, Milan Pophristic, Alexander Sidorenko, Charles N. McEwen |
| Abstract |
Ionization processes have been discovered by which small and large as well as volatile and nonvolatile compounds are converted to gas-phase ions when associated with a matrix and exposed to sub-atmospheric pressure. Here, we discuss experiments further defining these simple and unexpected processes. Charge separation is found to be a common process for small molecule chemicals, solids and liquids, passed through an inlet tube from a higher to a lower pressure region, with and without heat applied. This charge separation process produces positively- and negatively-charged particles with widely different efficiencies depending on the compound and its physical state. Circumstantial evidence is presented suggesting that in the new ionization process, charged particles carry analyte into the gas phase, and desolvation of these particles produce the bare ions similar to electrospray ionization, except that solid particles appear likely to be involved. This mechanistic proposition is in agreement with previous theoretical work related to ion emission from ice. Graphical Abstract ᅟ. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 9 | 41% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
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 01 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#2,724
of 3,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,917
of 339,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#23
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 339,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.