Comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)ESI-FT-ICR-MS analysis of humic and fulvic acids.
: Soil organic matter (SOM) plays a key role in the global carbon and nitrogen cycles. Soil biogeochemistry is regularly studied by extracting the base-soluble fractions of SOM: acidinsoluble humic acid (HA) and acid-soluble fulvic acid (FA). Electrospray ionization−Fourier transform−ion cyclotron resonance−mass spectrometry (ESI-FT-ICR-MS) is commonly utilized for molecularly characterizing these fractions. Different sample preparation techniques exist for the analysis of HA and FA though questions remain regarding data comparability following different preparations. Comparisons of different sample preparation techniques here revealed that the negative-mode ESI-FT-ICRMS analytical window can be skewed to detect different groups of molecules, with primary differences in oxygenation, aromaticity, and molecular weight. It was also observed that HA and FA from soils versus an aquatic matrix behaved very differently. Thus, we conclude that sample preparation techniques determined to be ?most optimal? in our study are in no way universal. We recommend that future studies of HA and FA involve similar comparative studies for determining the most suitable sample preparation technique for their particular type of HA or FA matrices. This will enhance data comparability among different studies and environmental systems and ultimately allow us to better understand the complex composition of environmental matrices.
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Artigo de periódico biblioteca |
Language: | Ingles English |
Published: |
2022-09-28
|
Subjects: | FT-ICR-MS, Organic matter characterization, Electrospray ionization, Data comparability, |
Online Access: | http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1146932 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01125 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
id |
dig-alice-doc-1146932 |
---|---|
record_format |
koha |
spelling |
dig-alice-doc-11469322022-09-28T18:06:13Z Comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)ESI-FT-ICR-MS analysis of humic and fulvic acids. GORANOV, A. I. TADINI, A. M. MARTIN NETO, L. BERNARDI, A. C. de C. PEZZOPANE, J. R. M. MILORI, D. M. B. P. MOUNIER, S. HATCHER, P. G. LADISLAU MARTIN NETO, CNPDIA; ALBERTO CARLOS DE CAMPOS BERNARDI, CPPSE; JOSE RICARDO MACEDO PEZZOPANE, CPPSE; DEBORA MARCONDES BASTOS PEREIRA, CNPDIA. FT-ICR-MS Organic matter characterization Electrospray ionization Data comparability : Soil organic matter (SOM) plays a key role in the global carbon and nitrogen cycles. Soil biogeochemistry is regularly studied by extracting the base-soluble fractions of SOM: acidinsoluble humic acid (HA) and acid-soluble fulvic acid (FA). Electrospray ionization−Fourier transform−ion cyclotron resonance−mass spectrometry (ESI-FT-ICR-MS) is commonly utilized for molecularly characterizing these fractions. Different sample preparation techniques exist for the analysis of HA and FA though questions remain regarding data comparability following different preparations. Comparisons of different sample preparation techniques here revealed that the negative-mode ESI-FT-ICRMS analytical window can be skewed to detect different groups of molecules, with primary differences in oxygenation, aromaticity, and molecular weight. It was also observed that HA and FA from soils versus an aquatic matrix behaved very differently. Thus, we conclude that sample preparation techniques determined to be ?most optimal? in our study are in no way universal. We recommend that future studies of HA and FA involve similar comparative studies for determining the most suitable sample preparation technique for their particular type of HA or FA matrices. This will enhance data comparability among different studies and environmental systems and ultimately allow us to better understand the complex composition of environmental matrices. 2022-09-28T18:06:04Z 2022-09-28T18:06:04Z 2022-09-28 2022 Artigo de periódico Environmental Science & Technology, v. 56, 2022. http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1146932 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01125 Ingles en openAccess 12688 - 12701 |
institution |
EMBRAPA |
collection |
DSpace |
country |
Brasil |
countrycode |
BR |
component |
Bibliográfico |
access |
En linea |
databasecode |
dig-alice |
tag |
biblioteca |
region |
America del Sur |
libraryname |
Sistema de bibliotecas de EMBRAPA |
language |
Ingles English |
topic |
FT-ICR-MS Organic matter characterization Electrospray ionization Data comparability FT-ICR-MS Organic matter characterization Electrospray ionization Data comparability |
spellingShingle |
FT-ICR-MS Organic matter characterization Electrospray ionization Data comparability FT-ICR-MS Organic matter characterization Electrospray ionization Data comparability GORANOV, A. I. TADINI, A. M. MARTIN NETO, L. BERNARDI, A. C. de C. PEZZOPANE, J. R. M. MILORI, D. M. B. P. MOUNIER, S. HATCHER, P. G. Comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)ESI-FT-ICR-MS analysis of humic and fulvic acids. |
description |
: Soil organic matter (SOM) plays a key role in the global carbon and nitrogen cycles. Soil biogeochemistry is regularly studied by extracting the base-soluble fractions of SOM: acidinsoluble humic acid (HA) and acid-soluble fulvic acid (FA). Electrospray ionization−Fourier transform−ion cyclotron resonance−mass spectrometry (ESI-FT-ICR-MS) is commonly utilized for molecularly characterizing these fractions. Different sample preparation techniques exist for the analysis of HA and FA though questions remain regarding data comparability following different preparations. Comparisons of different sample preparation techniques here revealed that the negative-mode ESI-FT-ICRMS analytical window can be skewed to detect different groups of molecules, with primary differences in oxygenation, aromaticity, and molecular weight. It was also observed that HA and FA from soils versus an aquatic matrix behaved very differently. Thus, we conclude that sample preparation techniques determined to be ?most optimal? in our study are in no way universal. We recommend that future studies of HA and FA involve similar comparative studies for determining the most suitable sample preparation technique for their particular type of HA or FA matrices. This will enhance data comparability among different studies and environmental systems and ultimately allow us to better understand the complex composition of environmental matrices. |
author2 |
LADISLAU MARTIN NETO, CNPDIA; ALBERTO CARLOS DE CAMPOS BERNARDI, CPPSE; JOSE RICARDO MACEDO PEZZOPANE, CPPSE; DEBORA MARCONDES BASTOS PEREIRA, CNPDIA. |
author_facet |
LADISLAU MARTIN NETO, CNPDIA; ALBERTO CARLOS DE CAMPOS BERNARDI, CPPSE; JOSE RICARDO MACEDO PEZZOPANE, CPPSE; DEBORA MARCONDES BASTOS PEREIRA, CNPDIA. GORANOV, A. I. TADINI, A. M. MARTIN NETO, L. BERNARDI, A. C. de C. PEZZOPANE, J. R. M. MILORI, D. M. B. P. MOUNIER, S. HATCHER, P. G. |
format |
Artigo de periódico |
topic_facet |
FT-ICR-MS Organic matter characterization Electrospray ionization Data comparability |
author |
GORANOV, A. I. TADINI, A. M. MARTIN NETO, L. BERNARDI, A. C. de C. PEZZOPANE, J. R. M. MILORI, D. M. B. P. MOUNIER, S. HATCHER, P. G. |
author_sort |
GORANOV, A. I. |
title |
Comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)ESI-FT-ICR-MS analysis of humic and fulvic acids. |
title_short |
Comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)ESI-FT-ICR-MS analysis of humic and fulvic acids. |
title_full |
Comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)ESI-FT-ICR-MS analysis of humic and fulvic acids. |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)ESI-FT-ICR-MS analysis of humic and fulvic acids. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)ESI-FT-ICR-MS analysis of humic and fulvic acids. |
title_sort |
comparison of sample preparation techniques for the (--)esi-ft-icr-ms analysis of humic and fulvic acids. |
publishDate |
2022-09-28 |
url |
http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1146932 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01125 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT goranovai comparisonofsamplepreparationtechniquesfortheesifticrmsanalysisofhumicandfulvicacids AT tadiniam comparisonofsamplepreparationtechniquesfortheesifticrmsanalysisofhumicandfulvicacids AT martinnetol comparisonofsamplepreparationtechniquesfortheesifticrmsanalysisofhumicandfulvicacids AT bernardiacdec comparisonofsamplepreparationtechniquesfortheesifticrmsanalysisofhumicandfulvicacids AT pezzopanejrm comparisonofsamplepreparationtechniquesfortheesifticrmsanalysisofhumicandfulvicacids AT miloridmbp comparisonofsamplepreparationtechniquesfortheesifticrmsanalysisofhumicandfulvicacids AT mouniers comparisonofsamplepreparationtechniquesfortheesifticrmsanalysisofhumicandfulvicacids AT hatcherpg comparisonofsamplepreparationtechniquesfortheesifticrmsanalysisofhumicandfulvicacids |
_version_ |
1756028698026311680 |