Comparison of flow injection analysis electrospray mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry and electrospray high‐field asymmetric waveform ion mobility mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of underivatized amino acid

AbstractTwenty proteinogenic amino acids (AAs) were determined without derivatization using flow injection analysis followed by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry (ESI‐MS and ESI‐MS/MS) and electrospray ionization high‐field asymmetric waveform ion mobility mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry (ESI‐FAIMS‐MS and ESI‐FAIMS‐MS/MS), in positive and negative ionization modes. Three separate sets of ESI‐FAIMS conditions were used for the separation and detection of the 20 AAs. Typically ESI‐FAIMS‐MS showed somewhat improved sensitivity and significantly better signal‐to‐noise ratios than ESI‐MS mainly due to the elimination of background noise. However, the difference between ESI‐FAIMS‐MS and ESI‐MS/MS was significantly less. ESI‐FAIMS was able to partially or completely resolve all the isobaric amino acid overlaps such as leucine, isoleucine and hydroxyproline or lysine and glutamine. Detection limits for the amino acids in ESI‐FAIMS‐MS mode ranged from 2 ng/mL for proline to 200 ng/mL for aspartic acid. Overall, ESI‐FAIMS‐MS is the preferred method for the quantitative analysis of AAs in a hydrolyzed yeast matrix. Copyright © 2006 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.