Chromatographia

, Volume 65, Issue 11–12, pp 649–653 | Cite as

Influence of Solvent Additive Composition on Chromatographic Separation and Sodium Adduct Formation of Peptides in HPLC–ESI MS

Original
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Mobile phase additives have a strong influence on sensitivity and spectral quality when HPLC is coupled to mass spectrometry. They may cause ion suppression, as frequently observed with trifluoroacetic acid, or may lead to increased adduct formation, complicating data analysis and interfering with automated LC–MS–MS analysis. When reversed-phase HPLC is performed under neutral conditions, ammonium acetate is the additive of choice because of its volatility. Because of the limited solubility of ammonium acetate in commonly employed organic solvents like acetonitrile usually a small amount of water is added for dissolution, and in addition, acetic acid can be added to obtain a buffered system. We compared six different acetonitrile/ammonium acetate blends, differing in their water and acetic acid content and evaluated their performance for HPLC–MS analysis of model peptides (bradykinins) under neutral conditions. The results demonstrate that mobile phase preparation strongly influences chromatographic separation and adduct formation in electrospray ionization MS, as shown for a series of bradykinin peptides. By varying the solvent composition only slightly to influence the pH curves during gradient elution, three nearly coeluting peptides could be baseline separated. At the same time, the formation of sodiated instead of protonated peptides was found to vary by up to a factor of four, depending on the preparation of the solvent blends.

Keywords

Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry Electrospray ionization Sodium adduct formation Chromatographic separation Peptides 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mrs. Romea Gerth, Sigma-Aldrich Switzerland, for the ICP-MS measurements.

References

  1. 1.
    Yamashita M, Fenn JB (1984) J Phys Chem 88:4451–4459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yamashita M, Fenn JB (1984) J Phys Chem 88:4671–4675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitehouse CM, Dreyer RN, Yamashita M, Fenn JB (1985) Anal Chem 57:675–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang G, Cole RB (1994) Anal Chem 66:3702–3708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emmert J, Pfluger M, Wahl F (2004) LCGC Eur 17:646–649Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaiser P, Akerboom T, Wood WG, Reinauer H (2006) Clin Lab 52:37–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee SW, Kim HS, Beauchamp JL (1998) J Am Chem Soc 120:3188–3195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsu FF, Bohrer A, Turk J (1998) J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 9:516–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Apffel A, Fischer S, Goldberg G, Goodley PC, Kuhlmann FE (1995) J Chromatogr A 712:177–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Niessen WMA (1999) Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 318–324Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou S, Hamburger M (1995) Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 9:1516–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    http://www.expasy.org/tools/pi_tool.htmlGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manisali I, Chen DDY, Schneider BB (2006) Trends Anal Chem 25:243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruins AP, Covey TR, Henion JD (1987) Anal Chem 59:2642–2646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodriquez CF, Fournier R, Chu IK, Hopkinson AC, Siu KWM (1999) Int J Mass Spectrom 192:303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rodriquez CF, Guo X, Shoeib T, Hopkinson AC, Siu KWM (2000) J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 11:967–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlag/GWV Fachverlage GmbH 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Analytical Chemistry and Food ChemistryUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Sigma-Aldrich ProductionBuchsSwitzerland
  3. 3.Sigma-Aldrich LaborchemikalienSeelzeGermany

Personalised recommendations