Talk:Ion attachment mass spectrometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Chemistry
Chemistry Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents

[edit] Objections

Firstly, I must qualify myself. I am not a mass spec expert. I can run an ESI, I know how mass specs work, and I can read the spectrum, that's about it. That said, I have a few problems with this article.

The tone of the article suggests it is something quite different from other mass-spec techniques. For example, it says it uses an ionization method. But, this is not a surprising fact - all mass spec techniques (at least those I am familiar with such as ESI, EI, FAB, MALDI, ECP) require some form of ionization. If not, how will you be able to sort the masses?

Also, organics and aromatics are hardly large molecules. I work with some very simple TM complexes and their MWs are at 400 or so, and can easily go up to 1000 or so with the addition of a few phosphine ligands, some dimerization, etc. That's surely larger than organics and aromatics.

Lastly, I take issue with the contention that it is non-destructive. Though I have never used this technique, I am certain that you need to shoot a small sample into the machine, and you can't ever get that sample back (probably smeared on the surface of the detector).

Bottom line, I feel that this article should explain how it is similar or different from other mass spec techniques, and it should explain how it works in greater detail. --Rifleman 82 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your objections and I would call myself a mass spectrometry expert (not that I know everything or am the most expert of experts). The article is poorly written and erroneous in many ways. My greater concern is that it may not be notable enough for inclusion in WP. To clarify what the article does a poor job of explaining: This article is about an ionisation technique. The other parts are ancillary. It is a novel ionisation technique, but there are many novel ionisation techniques. It is an active area of research and there are other similarly novel techniques which are very notable but do not have articles. An example would be DESI (desorption electrospray ionization) which gets over 6000 google hits. It is commercialized and there are extensive papers on it. The technique is very recent, about three years old but is very notable. I find almost nothing on IA-MASS or Ion attached mass spectrometry. I get 9 google hits with half of those being WP or mirrors. Perhaps this technique wil grow in importance but lets not be a crystal ball. There seems to be about 3-4 papers on the subject (e.g. [1]. I don't know if my rewriting this (which I could) is worth it. I say delete as not notable. --Nick Y. 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As you are a mass spec expert, can you tell if
"Recently, with the introduction of a new analytical instrument IA-Mass, screening of plastic material alongside manufacturing line becomes possible. A 5 min. detection cycle and a 20 min. quantification cycle is available to test and to qualify plastic parts as they reach the assembly line."
in Brominated flame retardant and similar sentences in other articles are correct and worse to be mentioned? Thanks. --Leyo 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
To me this sounds like a weasel-worded statement trying to take research results that indicate a possible commercial application and make it sound like it is actually being done without actually saying that. I.e. it is now possible. It is common in these sort of fields to point out the impact that the technology *may* have. After all the possible impact and utility of something which is not yet a mature technology *is* the reason to study it more. That does not make it a notable technology. Every not-notable wanna be technology proponent will point out the advantages and potential impact. Only a few will live up to the potential and even fewer will be really important. The most notable ionisation techniques electrospray ionisation and MALDI were once completely ignored but now are Nobel prize winning. This one may not win the Nobel but might someday be used extensively for such purposes and may even be in use now for such purposes on a small scale. It is hard to verify anything without references. I can say definitively that this has not taken the mass spec community by storm based on the number of articles. The fundamental processes involved (metal adduct ions) have been know for a long time but the manner of producing them is different and geared to a new purpose. But again people are constantly fiddling with new ways to produce ions. This is essentially a gas phase ion-molecule reaction means of producing an ion. People have <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">studied this process for many years for the purpose of understanding the fundamentals of gas phase ion chemistry rather than for specific applications. Sorry I can't do much more than speculate with so little information. We should fall back on verifiability and I can't personally back these claims and there are no references. Again I say not-notable, delete.--Nick Y. 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's what Pubmed has:
  • Selvin PC, Iwase K, Fujii T (2002). "Design and performance of an atmospheric pressure inlet system for lithium ion attachment mass spectrometry". Anal. Chem. 74 (9): 2053–7. PMID 12033306. 
  • Tsugoshi T, Nagaoka T, Nakamura M, Shiokawa Y, Watari K (2006). "Application of ion attachment mass spectrometry to evolved gas analysis for in situ monitoring of porous ceramic processing". Anal. Chem. 78 (7): 2366–9. doi:10.1021/ac0518248. PMID 16579621. 
  • Masaki H, Chen L, Korenaga T (2006). "Direct analysis of diesel exhaust particles by fragmentation-free mass spectrometry using ion attachment mass spectrometry". Environmental sciences : an international journal of environmental physiology and toxicology 13 (6): 347–52. PMID 17273150. 
Also US patent 7164121 and US patent 7084397. I'll have to look throug this stuff to see if it's the same thing as in the article. --Kkmurray 22:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not an impressively long list of publications. I saw those, but with such a short list of articles I'm not sure it is worth too much time regarding notability, which it seems clearly not to be. I am interested in it myself but that might be a good indicator of being too specific of an audience. The few interested mass spectrometrists should be reading the primary literature anyways. I did, however, realize that we may be missing quite a bit of work in Japanese language journals.--Nick Y. 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Another ref: What's About Ion Attachment Mass Spectrometry (IAMS), also Ni, Jinsong; Alex G. Harrison (1999). "Reactive Collisions in Quadrupole Cells. 7: Characterization of C5H8 Isomers by Reaction with Metal Ions". Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 10 (2): 220 - 224. . This looks like a mass spectrometer built around the reaction A+ + B + M -> AB+ + M. I would say either fix with a rename or merge with chemical ionization. --Kkmurray 02:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a distinction between the reaction and it being used as the means of ionization, as opposed to an object of study. The reaction is notable, even very notable, a source which is somehow exclusively designed to get ionization through such means is not, at least yet. --Nick Y. 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brominated flame retardants

Is there a reason why this ionization technique is especially suited to analyzing these chemicals? I have the impression that 0.1 % w/w (from the text) is already quite easy to detect using, say, GC-MS using selected ion monitoring. --Rifleman 82 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point Rifleman 82 !
Required sensitivity is easy @0.1% !

However GC-Ms and sample preparation are not compatible with manufacturing environment, not to say about plastic recycling environment. In this situation, cycle time, ease of operation, no or little sample preparation and low skilled labor are the essence of a successful implementation.

RoHS bans concentration higher than 0.1%. If the test method is too complex no one will use it. Thus it is necessary to develop a method who generates an acceptable burden...This is the situation on the upstream part of the plastic food chain. Now on the downstrzam part of the foodchain, the recycling side, it is important to be able to segregate high BFR concentration plastics which is a burden, which can only be sent to an incinerator (as BFR can leach out) from low concentration BFR which has a value as it can be recycled.
As you can see in the JVC-Victor purchasing specifications the two methods that are qualified are GC-MS and IAMS(IA-Mass)Maseracing 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I think it would be wonderful to include this detail (with references!) in the main article. If there are any real-world examples of this technique being used for quality control, they should be used to substantiate the notability of the article (with references!) as well.
As a related question about BFRs, what about subjecting a solid sample to CHNX analysis (elemental analysis), looking for Br content in particular? I'm wondering, perhaps even less sample preparation is necessary? Just gouge out a small piece of the plastic, put it in a labelled vial, and send it to the lab? --Rifleman 82 01:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you Rifleman 82 !

I appreciate your cleaning up, I am new on this encyclopedic activity.

Which detail do you want me to include ? I may not have a lot of reference at this moment!

What is a CHNX analysis ?

Today, when you are confronted with BFR concentration test implementation, you have three choices:

  • XRF : Xray fluorescence, that requires no to basic sample preparation, will be able to provide with a qualitative information on the presence of Br products (good Br or bad Br) -> XRF can only help you to determine
    • no Br product
    • do not know product
  • GC-MS: will require extensive and delicate sample preparation (some with solvent), then the sample is send through column for separation, then electron Impact Ionised, then mass filtered, spectrum will be gathered and analysed to determine/reconstruct the molecule(s) that was in the sample. Here result are operator dependant, take a long time (long cycle time) and are expensive.
  • IA-Mass: It has two mode of operation:
    • Detection: a small notch of plastic material, 500mg is enough, is loaded in the sample holder that can contain up to five different samples. The test cycle is initiated, each of the sample will be investigated. The result will then be available, after a 5 min paer sample cycle, as:
      • Presence of PBB type product
      • Presence of PBDE Penta and OctaBDE (only the banned ones)
    • Quantification: a still small but a bit larger notch of plastic is cryo-crunched, to obtain a small grain calibrated powder. The powder is inserted in one of the sample holder position. Other position are filled. Then the instrument performs a more detailed analysis that will take approx. 20 minutes per samples. Detailed report is then available as graphic spectrum and easy to read results: Pass or failed !

From an operational stand-point IA-Mass is the only method that is compatible with a manufacturing or recycling environment.

Maseracing 11:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this process in a positive light. I'll just answer the last part first. By CHNX analysis, I refer to elemental analysis, where a sample of accurate weight is digested, and burned. The effluent gases are captured and used to quantify the carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen (CHN), and halide (X) content. --Rifleman 82 02:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ionisation

Ion Attachment

In Mass Spectrometry, all conventional ionisation methods (not only electron impact ionisation (EI) but chemical ionisation (CI) and also electron attachment or related techniques (EA)) inherently brake the sample molecules. It produces some fragmentation ions due to the high ionisation energy.

To solve the problem of fragmentation, ion attachment mass spectrometer (IAMS) was developped; It has a soft ionisation technique. A lithium ion is "stucked" on to the sample (this is why I used the word not destructive, but it is not proper, I admit) . Its ionisation performance for many organic compounds is being tested. What can be reported today is that quasi-molecule are detected without any fragmentation.

This ionisation technique allows for quicker, faster, simplier analysis of complex molecules, as no separation (GC) or fragmentation (hard ionisation) has happen in the analytical process.

References:

Fragment-free Measurement by Ion Attachment Mass Spectrometry. (2001) by M. Nakamura, T. Sasaki and Y. Shiokawa, in Shitsuryo Bunseki Sogo Toronkai Koen Yoshishu.

Maseracing 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maseracing-Welcome to Wikipedia. Your input and contributions are welcome. I would like to ask about your level of involvement with this work. How are you involved? Are you a user? A co-inventor or co-author? If you are involved in this work it does not preclude you from contributing. In fact an expert on this particular technique is very much needed. It does, however, mean that we need to be careful in judging the notability of the subject. I currently am concerned that the subject is not sufficiently notable. I am open to being convinced that it is with proper citation of its notability from reliable unrelated third party sources. I am also willing to bend my personal perception of notability within the mass spectrometry field if this is marginal and ends up being a really well done article. We would just need to write more articles about more notable subjects. As it stands now I only see a very few scientific articles about this and no popular or trade press. This makes me doubtful that it is very notable. Please address these issues. Thanks.--Nick Y. 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I think that this article is notable. You have the two patents above, I get 70 hits on Chemical Abstracts (most since 1999) and it turns out you can buy one from Canon (Anelva Technix Corp): Non-cracking IAMS mass spectroscope (not this Iams). The article needs references and expanding, but notability-wise, it looks OK. --Kkmurray 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I added some more refs and took the notability box off the front page per above. --Kkmurray 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. I concur on notability. Commercial availability from a major manufacturer in particular seals notability in my mind in this case (not that it would always). The evidence for notability should have been included by the originator of the article but it is now clearly demonstrated with your help. It seems that the lack of peer reviewed articles on it in English is likely due to being a Japanese invention directed at industrial process monitoring rather than research.--Nick Y. 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


As you have noticed IAMS has been used by our Japanese partner in Japan. For obvious reasons IA-Mass is the name that has been selected outside of Japan.

Maseracing (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen IA-Mass used outside of Wikipedia. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am working on it ! We will be releasing some info regarding recycling of plastics used in IT equipments.

Maseracing (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that I haven't seen the term IA-Mass used outside Wikipedia. To my ear, IA-mass should be IA-mass spectrometry, which just brings you back to the acronym IAMS (which is fine). --Kkmurray (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

At this point, I believe it is time that Maseracing (talk · contribs) explain to all exactly what his relationship with this technique is. You seem very protective, attempting to WP:OWN this article, and attempting to emphasize how it is a trademarked, etc. You appear to have quite a severe conflict of interest. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please inform us as to your involvement. From your most recent post you seem to be very directly involved, perhaps a co-inventor or head of marketing the Canon MS. I asked this question once already and did not get an answer. Having a conflict of interest, as I think we must assume at this point, will not prevent you from being involved in the article, although it may change your role in some ways. I would warn you that not being forthcoming may prevent you from being involved in the article at all.--Nick Y. (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am involved, as explained above , I am involved in a project focusing on defining an industrial plastic recycling process(es) that can deal with BFR rich materials as found in most of IT equipments that have reached their end of life. The first step of this process is to identify good (recyclable) and less good (special incineration process required, today... else tomorrow...) plastics. The second step is to make sure that no BFR rich products are used anymore.

I am not an inventor or yet at Canon MS! ...I hope to have answered to your questions.

Maseracing (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So, you do not work for and have never worked for or with the inventors or Canon? You work for a waste/recycling management company or perhaps a green chemistry academic group and you find this technology interesting for the recycling project you are working on. You do not profit directly from the adoption of the technology? You *might* profit from the implementation of it in your work only in that it solves a recycling problem effectively and therefore benefits the company you work for and makes you successful in your work? Is this all correct?--Nick Y. (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)