Quadrupole mass filters with octopole fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of quadrupole mass filters with added octopole fields in the range 2.0-4.0% has been investigated. The added fields are much greater than those normally added to conventional rod sets by mechanical tolerances or construction errors. Quadrupole rod sets with added octopole fields were constructed with round rods by making one pair of rods greater in diameter than the other pair. For positive ions, resolution at half height of only about 200 is possible if the negative direct current (dc) output of the quadrupole power supply is connected to the smaller rods. If the positive dc output of the quadrupole power supply is connected to the smaller rods, the resolution improves dramatically; a resolution at half height of 5800 has been observed with a rod set with 2.6% added octopole field. For negative ions the best resolution is obtained with the polarity of the dc reversed, i.e. with the negative dc applied to the smaller rods. These findings are unexpected in view of the literature that argues that to obtain high mass resolution with quadrupole mass filters, higher order multipoles must be kept as small as possible. Numerical simulations of peak shapes agree qualitatively with experiments. Simulation of the boundaries of the first stability region for positive ions shows that when the positive dc is applied to the smaller rods, the addition of a 2.0% octopole field causes the boundaries to shift slightly but the boundaries are well defined, and the tip of the stability region remains sharp. When the positive dc is applied to the larger rods, the boundaries of the stability region move out and become diffuse. For instruments that require a rod set that can be used both as a linear trap and a mass filter, these rod sets may offer improved trap performance while still being capable of providing conventional mass analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".