Talk:Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mass spectrometry (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mass spectrometry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mass spectrometry 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Moved ICP-AES content to it's own page, as it's a different technique.


Can anyone please give a brief explanation of how a sample is measured? The plasma-to-ms in the intro is too brief, and the full explanation too lengthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A sample is prepared in liquid form. A flow of gas, applied to the sample, converts the sample to an aerosol form. A plasma torch is then applied to the aerosol which ionizes the atoms. Mass spectrometry is then performed on the ionized atoms. Thintommy 14:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


Does the sample being measured have to be in liquid form? So if a sample fo a metal alloy was being measured would it have to be dissolved in acid first? Thanks. OAP boba 08:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Samples are normally liquids. Solids can generally be dissolved in acids or by other means to produce liquids. However solids can be analyzed directly by laser ablation. A pulsed laser, diected at the surface of the solid, produces a plume of material which is then carried into the plasma to produce ions.
...or an electrically conductive solid can be introduced by spark erosion. Weasley one (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic Reaction Cell[edit]

The DRC page has been tagged as needing a clean-up for some time. Anybody over here want to give it a shot?--SteveMtl 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge dynamic reaction cell with ICP-MS[edit]

Dynamic Reaction Cell is a related short article with cleanup needs. A merge could help set that information with the context of this article. Comments? --Kkmurray 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merged, but article still needs refs and cleanup.--Kkmurray 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename (de-Acronym)[edit]

See WP:NAME and WP:ACRONYM. The main issue is whether ICP-MS is "almost exclusively known only by its acronym" (emphasis added). I am arguing that it is known by both so the acronym should be spelled out. This will essentially be a swap of redirect and content between the existing ICP-MS and Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. --Kkmurray 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Request is here: WP:RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray (talkcontribs) 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional rationale: ICP disambiguates to article Inductively coupled plasma, ICP-AES redirects to Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. In this scheme, ICP-MS should redirect (remembering to sign this time). --Kkmurray 13:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from ICP-MS to Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also of importance to notify that there are other types of detectors conected to the ICP, that is not metioned here. Like the SFMS and other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Info about the tech of ICP-AES....[edit]

-- (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and precision[edit]

-- (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


-- (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Limit of detection[edit]

-- (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


-- (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, I can see the monograph about the linearity, reproducibility and Limit of quantification for the tech in the future to demonstrate the soundness, if the tech is not at the preliminary stage.

To be honest, curve fitting techs other than linear one is rarely used in Analytical chemistry

Hope my above search results are objective ones rather than subjectively-chasing events. I mean that analytical chemists prefer demonstrating the linearities of the teches in the field to other curve fittings

Please bear in mind that the subject of curve fitting in the topic of Verification and validation applies to any fields. -- (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The history[edit]

From Google scholar

I'm surprised that the tech has got a such long history and not many monographs about its linearity which usually should be assessed even at the preliminary stage -- (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Although no monographs about its linearity but the following infos give glimps

-- (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


-- (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature problem...???[edit]

-- (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

About the definition of.....[edit]

-- (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion[edit]

-- (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Science & religion .....[edit]


-- (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Karmapa has been considered as a Kuanyin's manifestation on the earth [citation needed] and Kuanyin really is the Godess of earth which is a female figure. I don't know what to say.....because the above consequence happened on the earth though -- (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll see how the spirit of the sixteenth karmapa sort this mess....@__@ -- (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


What information exactly or information along what lines is supposed to go there? Is it about "quadrupole" vs. "high-resolution"? Is it about interferences issues? "Cold"/"hot" plasma modes? I don't quite get the idea of the planned section. (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Motor oil analysis[edit]

In the "Usage" section, in the paragraph beginning "ICP is used for motor oil analysis...", the term "ICP" was used throughout, without the "-MS". In my (considerable) experience, the ICP technique predominantly used in motor oil analysis is ICP-AES. Whilst ICP-MS is used, it is nowhere near as common and typically used in specialised analysis rather than routine engine oil sample testing. To qualify my experience, I have 18 years of product development and technical support with engine oils, including running a lubricating oil analytical laboratory. My final year project for my undergraduate degree was also in the subject of ICP-MS, specifically isolating and correcting for noise in the MS signal to improve detection limits and ion differentiation.

I have therefore moved the whole section to the ICP-AES article, with slight enhancements. Weasley one (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


In the opening paragraph, is "low-background isotope" synonymous with "minimally radioactive isotope"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thintommy (talkcontribs) 03:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)