Talk:Flowing-afterglow mass spectrometry

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass spectrometry Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mass spectrometry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Mass spectrometryWikipedia:WikiProject Mass spectrometryTemplate:WikiProject Mass spectrometryMass spectrometry articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

It is requested that a physics diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

One of the first papers reporting the use of flowing afterglow (FA) was reported in Planet Space Sci in 1966 by Norton, Ferguson, Fehsenfeld, and Schmeltekopf. They studied ion-molecule reactions pertient in the Martian atmosphere. This flowing afterglow replaced the stationary flowing afterglow. The flowing afterglow has many attractive aspects: well-understood laminar, viscous gas flow, a large number density of carrier gas which allows the study of thermalized reactions, and the cabability to make new reactant ions in situ. The ambipolar plasma is sampled using a nosecone and detected using a conventional quadrupole or tandem mass spectrometry, depending on the application. One of the drawbacks of the flowing afterglow is the possiblity of generating multiple reactant ions. This problem was cicumvented by implementing the selected ion flow tube (SIFT).

The flowing afterglow can be used to identify and quantify the VOCs of a sample as long as the fundamental ion chemistry is known. The commonly used ions are H3O+, O2+, and NO+. All ions have drawbacks and advantages. Strategies that have been employed to unequivocally identify the VOCs are to use GC coupled with the FA or to use a complement of reagent ions. Detection limits are typically ppb if there is limited sample or ppt if there is unlimited sample.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: M.P. Hayes[edit]

The introduction is a great, brief summary of how FA-MS works. Initially I was picturing GC-MS until I continued reading the introduction. If possible, it may be beneficial to include a diagram of the instrument or a small schematic.

In the history sections, the information is beneficial, but one question that I asked myself was what methods did this replace. It seems at the time of discovery, there may have been other popular methods that were pushed out by this technique. I don’t know if this is the proper place for this bit of information, but it would be nice to include a reference of the impact of this development.

In this section, I see where you mentioned it replaces the stationary afterglow. If there is a Wikipedia page for stationary afterglow, I would link these so people can get a better understanding of what stationary afterglow is. If there is not a link, maybe provided a very brief idea of what it is. In the application section, it may be nice to either include a small image on a spectrum that comes from FA-MS or maybe some sort of table on detection limits per compound as a general representation of the method.

Overall, this article looks really good. You have a good number of references. The images and maybe some comparisons would help tie it together.

Michael.p.hayes (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)michael.p.hayes[reply]