Method for the Routine Determination of Accurate Masses by Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new method for the measurement of accurate masses using direct infusion in an electrospray-triple quadrupole mass spectrometer is presented and compared to the traditional method using high-resolution mass spectrometry. The proposed method uses internal calibrants and post-acquisition calibration of the mass spectrum signal using the MassWorks software to determine accurate masses. Then, based on parameters such as elemental composition, number of double bond equivalents, and type of ion (even- or odd-electron), etc., a list of potential molecular formula candidates are generated and ranked according to spectral accuracy, (i.e., similarity between the calibrated profile and theoretical isotopic patterns). Experiments using six diverse synthesis products showed that mass accuracy in the Quattro Premier triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (QqQMS) was ≤9.2 mDa and spectral accuracy was ≥90.6%. According to both mass accuracy tolerance (±10 mDa) and spectral accuracy, the correct molecular formula was ranked in the top seven compounds out of up to 32 potential candidates. When considering the context of the synthesis reaction, only one formula was possible. In summary, results showed that the measurement of spectral accuracy in a low-resolution instrument such as the triple quadrupole was strongly dependent on the signal intensity and the presence of interfering peaks in the profile mass range window. This study suggests that use of triple quadrupole mass spectrometry followed by post-acquisition calibration can be an economical and robust approach compared to the traditional method using high-resolution mass spectrometers for the measurement of accurate masses in routine applications using small organic molecules at microgram-per-litter concentrations in relatively clean matrices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".