| Title |
Ion concentration in micro and nanoscale electrospray emitters
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-018-1043-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth M. Yuill, Lane A. Baker |
| Abstract |
Solution-phase ion transport during electrospray has been characterized for nanopipettes, or glass capillaries pulled to nanoscale tip dimensions, and micron-sized electrospray ionization emitters. Direct visualization of charged fluorophores during the electrospray process is used to evaluate impacts of emitter size, ionic strength, analyte size, and pressure-driven flow on heterogeneous ion transport during electrospray. Mass spectrometric measurements of positively- and negatively-charged proteins were taken for micron-sized and nanopipette emitters under low ionic strength conditions to further illustrate a discrepancy in solution-driven transport of charged analytes. A fundamental understanding of analyte electromigration during electrospray, which is not always considered, is expected to provide control over selective analyte depletion and enrichment, and can be harnessed for sample cleanup. Graphical abstract Fluorescence micrographs of ion migration in nanoscale pipettes while solution is electrosprayed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 36% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 11 | 79% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
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 23 May 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#6,061
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,162
of 339,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#95
of 171 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 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 339,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.