Talk:Tandem mass spectrometry

November 2007

Tandem MS Experiments section - edited and updated this. There was some single MS info here, and I tried to present the information in a slightly clearer method. Leafschik1967 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganized page - moved section with different tandem MS experiments closer to top of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafschik1967 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

In tandem mass spectrometry in space, the separation elements are physically separated and distinct, although there is a physical connection between the elements to maintain high vacuum. ??? the elements are physically separated but they are physically connected. please clarify! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.96.167 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pnnl ftms.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pnnl ftms.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article restructuring

I cannot help but notice several shortcomings with this article. From even a quick read several issues stand out: (1) "In-source fragmentation" cannot be considered a technique of tandem mass spec. as no mass analysis has occured in the source. This section can stay but should appear after all other MS-MS techniques have been described. (2) The "newborn screening" section is only marginally relevant. What the article needs instead is a section dedicated on applications of tandem MS, where this information can appear. (3) A discussion on the usefulness of fragment spectra for structural elucidation of small molecular ions is missing. (4) I am quite surprised that none of the historical papers describing the various dissociation techniques are cited in the article nor appear in the bibliography.

I do find these issues to be rather serious and need to be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.251.52 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered this article while searching for how an ionization reaction actually takes place. While I am writing in this section, I find many shortcoming with regard to actual descriptions. I think it should be helpful if the ionization method is described. Once an ion has formed, then transfers, fragmentations, etc., become plausible. Even so, c- and z-fragmentation is a mystery to me and seemingly to Wikipedia. Overall, mass spectrometry is currently demanding a level of knowledge that I don't think is consistent with the objectives of Wikipedia. Again, I am only adding my comment to this section, but I could write this same criticism for other sections. Let me give an example of one kind of shortcoming. A reference to further information that requires a subscription to read. I have come to Wikipedia trying to find explanations for topics, not a source of references to them. Petedskier (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Could someone write an introduction? I would like to inform myself, but the article begins directly with detailed explanations without mentioning in the introduction what the difference between tandem and classical mass-spec is and why the tandem approach was invented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.30.167 (talk) 30 January 2016

I added a few sentences to expand the lead. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]