A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MS Guide to ICP-MS all Tutorial… · a novice reader. There is no...

38 SPECTROSCOPY 16(4) APRIL 2001 www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

Amazingly, 18 years after the com-mercialization of inductively cou-pled plasma mass spectrometry(ICP-MS), less than 4000 systemshave been installed worldwide. If

you compare this number with anotherrapid multielement technique, inductivelycoupled plasma optical emission spec-trometry (ICP-OES), first commercial-ized in 1974, the difference is quite signif-icant. In 1992, 18 years after ICP-OES wasintroduced, more than 9000 units hadbeen sold, and if you compare it with thesame time period that ICP-MS has beenavailable, the difference is even more dra-matic. From 1983 to the present day,more than 17,000 ICP-OES systems havebeen installed — more than four timesthe number of ICP-MS systems. If thecomparison is made with all atomic spec-troscopy instrumentation (ICP-MS, ICP-OES, graphite furnace atomic absorption[GFAA] and flame atomic absorption[FAA]), the annual turnover for ICP-MSis less than 7% of the total atomic spec-troscopy market — 400 units comparedto approximately 6000 atomic spec-troscopy systems. It’s even more surpris-ing when you consider that ICP-MS of-fers so much more than the othertechniques, including two of its most at-tractive features — the rapid multiele-ment capabilities of ICP-OES, combinedwith the superb detection limits of GFAA.

ICP-MS — ROUTINE OR RESEARCH?Clearly, one of the reasons is price — anICP-MS system typically costs twice asmuch as an ICP-OES system and threetimes more than a GFAA system. But in acompetitive world, the “street price” of anICP-MS system is much closer to a top-of-the-line ICP-OES system fitted with sam-pling accessories or a GFAA system thathas all the bells and whistles on it. So ifICP-MS is not significantly more expen-

sive than ICP-OES and GFAA, why hasn’tit been more widely accepted by the ana-lytical community? I firmly believe thatthe major reason why ICP-MS has notgained the popularity of the other traceelement techniques is that it is still con-sidered a complicated research tech-nique, requiring a very skilled person tooperate it. Manufacturers of ICP-MSequipment are constantly striving tomake the systems easier to operate, thesoftware easier to use, and the hardwareeasier to maintain, but even after 18 yearsit is still not perceived as a mature, rou-tine tool like flame AA or ICP-OES. Thismight be partially true because of the rel-ative complexity of the instrumentation;however, in my opinion, the dominantreason for this misconception is thatthere has not been good literature avail-able explaining the basic principles andbenefits of ICP-MS in a way that is com-pelling and easy to understand for some-one with very little knowledge of thetechnique. Some excellent textbooks (1,2) and numerous journal papers (3–5)are available that describe the fundamen-tals, but they tend to be far too heavy for

a novice reader. There is no question inmy mind that the technique needs to bepresented in a more user-friendly way tomake routine analytical laboratories morecomfortable with it. Unfortunately, thepublishers of the “for Dummies” series ofbooks have not yet found a mass (excusethe pun) market for writing one on ICP-MS. So until that time, we will be present-ing a number of short tutorials on thetechnique, as a follow-up to the posterthat was included in the February 2001issue of Spectroscopy.

During the next few months, we will bediscussing the following topics in greaterdepth:• principles of ion formation • sample introduction • plasma torch/radio frequency genera-

tor • interface region• ion focusing • mass separation • ion detection • sampling accessories• applications.

We hope that by the end of this series,we will have demystified ICP-MS, made it

TUTORIALTUTORIALS P E C T R O S C O P Y

A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart I

R O B E R T T H O M A S

Figure 1. Generation of positively charged ions in the plasma.

GENERATION OF IONS IN THE PLASMAWe’ll start this series off with a brief de-scription of the fundamental principleused in ICP-MS — the use of a high-temperature plasma discharge to gener-ate positively charged ions. The sample,

typically in liquid form, is pumped intothe sample introduction system, which ismade up of a spray chamber and nebu-lizer. It emerges as an aerosol and eventu-ally finds its way — by way of a sample in-jector — into the base of the plasma. As ittravels through the different heatingzones of the plasma torch it is dried, va-porized, atomized, and ionized. Duringthis time, the sample is transformed froma liquid aerosol to solid particles, theninto a gas. When it finally arrives at theanalytical zone of the plasma, at approxi-mately 6000–7000 K, it exists as excitedatoms and ions, representing the elemen-tal composition of the sample.The excitation of the outer electron ofa ground-state atom, to producewavelength-specific photons of light, isthe fundamental basis of atomic emission.However, there is also enough energy inthe plasma to remove an electron from itsorbital to generate an ion. It is the genera-tion, transportation, and detection of sig-nificant numbers of these positivelycharged ions that give ICP-MS its charac-teristic ultratrace detection capabilities.It is also important to mention that, although ICP-MS is predominantly usedfor the detection of positive ions, negativeions (such as halogens) are also pro-duced in the plasma. However, becausethe extraction and transportation of nega-tive ions is different from that of positiveions, most commercial instruments arenot designed to measure them. Theprocess of the generation of positivelycharged ions in the plasma is shown con-ceptually in greater detail in Figure 1.


a little more compelling to purchase, andultimately opened up its potential as aroutine tool to the vast majority of thetrace element community that has not yetrealized the full benefits of its capabilities.

S P E C T R O S C O P Y T U T O R I A L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Circle 28

Figure 3. Conversion of a chromium ground-state atom (Cr0) to anion (Cr1).

Figure 2. Simplified schematic of a chromium ground-state atom(Cr0).

Figure 5. Relative abundance of the naturally occurring isotopes of all the elements (6). Reproduced with the permission of PerkinElmerInstruments (Norwalk, CT).


Table I. Breakdown of the atomic structure of copper isotopes.

63Cu 65Cu

Number of protons (p1) 29 29Number of electrons (e2) 29 29Number of neutrons (n) 34 36Atomic mass (p1 1 n) 63 65Atomic number (p1) 29 29Natural abundance 69.17% 30.83%Nominal atomic weight 63.55*

* Calculated using the formulae 0.6917n 1 0.3083n 1 p1 (referenced to theatomic weight of carbon)

Figure 4. Mass spectra of the two copper isotopes — 63Cu1 and65Cu1.

APRIL 2001 16(4) SPECTROSCOPY 41


ION FORMATIONFigures 2 and 3 show the actual processof conversion of a neutral ground-stateatom to a positively charged ion. Figure 2shows a very simplistic view of thechromium atom Cr0, consisting of a nu-cleus with 24 protons (p1) and 28 neu-trons (n), surrounded by 24 orbiting elec-trons (e2) (It must be emphasized thatthis is not meant to be an accurate repre-sentation of the electrons’ shells and sub-shells, but simply a conceptual explana-tion for the purpose of clarity). From thiswe can say that the atomic number ofchromium is 24 (number of protons), andits atomic mass is 52 (number of protons1 neutrons).

If energy is then applied to thechromium ground-state atom in the formof heat from a plasma discharge, one ofthe orbiting electrons will be stripped offthe outer shell. This will result in only 23electrons left orbiting the nucleus. Be-cause the atom has lost a negative charge(e2) but still has 24 protons (p1) in thenucleus, it is converted into an ion with anet positive charge. It still has an atomicmass of 52 and an atomic number of 24,but is now a positively charged ion andnot a neutral ground-state atom. Thisprocess is shown in Figure 3.

NATURAL ISOTOPESThis is a very basic look at the process,because most elements occur in morethan one form (isotope). In fact,chromium has four naturally occurringisotopes, which means that thechromium atom exists in four differentforms, all with the same atomic numberof 24 (number of protons), but with differ-ent atomic masses (numbers of neu-trons).

To make this a little easier to under-stand, let’s take a closer look at an ele-ment like copper, which has only two dif-ferent isotopes — one with an atomicmass of 63 (63Cu) and the other with anatomic mass of 65 (65Cu). They both havethe same number of protons and elec-trons, but differ in the number of neu-trons in the nucleus. The natural abun-dances of 63Cu and 65Cu are 69.1% and30.9%, respectively, which gives copper anominal atomic mass of 63.55 — thevalue you see for copper in atomic weightreference tables. Details of the atomicstructure of the two copper isotopes areshown in Table I.

When a sample containing naturally oc-curring copper is introduced into the

plasma, two different ions of copper,63Cu1 and 65Cu1, are produced, whichgenerate different mass spectra — one atmass 63 and another at mass 65. This canbe seen in Figure 4, which is an actualICP-MS spectral scan of a sample contain-ing copper. It shows a peak for the 63Cu1

ion on the left, which is 69.17% abundant,and a peak for 65Cu1 at 30.83% abun-dance, on the right. You can also seesmall peaks for two Zn isotopes at mass64 (64Zn) and mass 66 (66Zn) (Zn has a to-tal of five isotopes at masses 64, 66, 67,68, and 70). In fact, most elements haveat least two or three isotopes and manyelements, including zinc and lead, havefour or more isotopes. Figure 5 is a chartthat shows the relative abundance of thenaturally occurring isotopes of all theelements.

During the next few months, we willsystematically take you on a journeythrough the hardware of an ICP massspectrometer, explaining how each majorcomponent works, and finishing the se-ries with an overview of how the tech-nique is being used to solve real-world ap-plication problems. Our goal is to presentboth the basic principles and benefits ofthe technique in a way that is clear, con-cise, and very easy to understand. Wehope that by the end of the series, youand your managers will be in a better po-sition to realize the enormous benefitsthat ICP-MS can bring to your laboratory.

REFERENCES(1) A. Montasser, Inductively Coupled Plasma

Mass Spectrometry (Wiley-VCH, Berlin,1998).

(2) F. Adams, R. Gijbels, and R. Van Grieken,Inorganic Mass Spectrometry (John Wileyand Sons, New York, 1988.).

(3) R.S. Houk, V. A. Fassel, and H.J. Svec, Dy-namic Mass Spectrom. 6, 234 (1981).

(4) A.R. Date and A.L. Gray, Analyst 106,1255 (1981).

(5) D.J. Douglas and J.B. French, Anal.Chem. 53, 37 (1982).

(6) Isotopic Composition of the Elements: PureApplied Chemistry 63(7), 991–1002(1991).

Robert Thomas is the principal of his ownfreelance writing and scientific consultingcompany, Scientific Solutions, based inGaithersburg, MD. He can be contacted byemail at [email protected] or viahis web site at www.scientificsolutions1.com.◆

S P E C T R O S C O P Y T U T O R I A L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Circle 29

56 SPECTROSCOPY 16(5) MAY 2001 www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

Part II of Robert Thomas’ series on induc-tively coupled plasma mass spectrometrylooks at one of the most critical areas of theinstrument — the sample introduction sys-tem. He discusses the fundamental princi-ples of converting a liquid into a fine-droplet aerosol suitable for ionization inthe plasma, and provides an overview ofthe different types of commercially avail-able nebulizers and spray chambers.

The majority of inductively coupledplasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) applications involve the analysisof liquid samples. Even though spec-troscopists adapted the technique

over the years to handle solids, it was de-veloped in the early 1980s primarily to an-alyze solutions. There are many ways ofintroducing a liquid into an ICP massspectrometer, but they all basicallyachieve the same result — they generatea fine aerosol of the sample so it can beefficiently ionized in the plasma dis-charge. The sample-introduction area hasbeen called the Achilles heel of ICP-MSbecause it is considered the weakestcomponent of the instrument, with only1–2% of the sample finding its way intothe plasma (1). Although there has re-cently been much improvement in thisarea, the fundamental design of an ICP-MS sample introduction system has notdramatically changed since the techniquewas first introduced in 1983.

Before discussing the mechanics ofaerosol generation in greater detail, let uslook at the basic components of a sampleintroduction system. Figure 1 shows theproximity of the sample introduction arearelative to the rest of the ICP mass spec-trometer, while Figure 2 represents theindividual components.

The mechanism of introducing a liquidsample into analytical plasma can be con-sidered as two separate events — aerosol

generation using a nebulizer and dropletselection by way of a spray chamber.Sharp carried out a thorough investiga-tion of both processes (2).

AEROSOL GENERATIONAs mentioned previously, the main func-tion of the sample introduction system isto generate a fine aerosol of the sample. Itachieves this purpose with a nebulizerand a spray chamber. The sample is nor-mally pumped at ~1 mL/min via a peri-staltic pump into the nebulizer. A peri-staltic pump is a small pump with lots ofminirollers that rotate at the same speed.The constant motion and pressure of therollers on the pump tubing feed the sam-ple to the nebulizer. The benefit of a peri-staltic pump is that it ensures a constantflow of liquid, irrespective of differencesin viscosity between samples, standards,and blanks. After the sample enters thenebulizer, the liquid is broken up into afine aerosol by the pneumatic action of

gas flow (~1 L/min) smashing the liquidinto tiny droplets, which is very similar tothe spray mechanism of a can of deodor-ant. Although pumping the sample is themost common approach to introducing it,some pneumatic nebulizers, such as theconcentric design, don’t need a pump be-cause they rely on the natural venturi ef-fect of the positive pressure of the nebu-lizer gas to suck the sample through thetubing. Solution nebulization is conceptu-ally represented in Figure 3, which showsaerosol generation using a nebulizer witha crossflow design.

DROPLET SELECTIONBecause the plasma discharge is ineffi-cient at dissociating large droplets, thespray chamber’s function is primarily toallow only the small droplets to enter theplasma. Its secondary purpose is tosmooth out pulses that occur during thenebulization process, due mainly to theperistaltic pump. Several ways exist to en-


A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart II: The Sample-Introduction System


Figure 1. ICP-MS system diagram showing the location of the sample introduction area.

MAY 2001 16(5) SPECTROSCOPY 57

(4). Therefore, general-purpose ICP-OESnebulizers that are designed to aspirate1–2% dissolved solids, or high-solids neb-ulizers such as the Babbington, V-groove,or cone-spray nebulizers, which are de-signed to handle as much as 20% dis-solved solids, are not ideal for use withICP-MS. The most common of the pneu-matic nebulizers used in commercial ICPmass spectrometers are the concentricand crossflow designs. The concentric de-sign is more suitable for clean samples,while the crossflow is generally more tol-erant to samples containing higher levelsof solids or particulate matter.

Concentric design. In the concentric neb-ulizer, the solution is introduced througha capillary tube to a low-pressure regioncreated by a gas flowing rapidly past theend of the capillary. The low pressure andhigh-speed gas combine to break up thesolution into an aerosol, which forms atthe open end of the nebulizer tip. Figure5 illustrates the concentric design.

Concentric pneumatic nebulizers canprovide excellent sensitivity and stability,particularly with clean solutions. How-ever, the small orifices can be plagued byblockage problems, especially if largenumbers of heavy matrix samples areaspirated.

Crossflow design. For samples that con-tain a heavier matrix or small amounts ofundissolved matter, the crossflow designis probably the best option. With this de-sign the argon gas is directed at right an-gles to the tip of a capillary tube, in con-trast to the concentric design, where thegas flow is parallel to the capillary. Thesolution is either drawn up through thecapillary tube via the pressure created bythe high-speed gas flow or, as is most

common with crossflow nebulizers,forced through the tube with a peristalticpump. In either case, contact between thehigh-speed gas and the liquid streamcauses the liquid to break up into anaerosol. Crossflow nebulizers are gener-ally not as efficient as concentric nebuliz-ers at creating the very small dropletsneeded for ICP-MS analyses. However,the larger diameter liquid capillary andlonger distance between liquid and gasinjectors reduce clogging problems.Many analysts feel that the small penaltypaid in analytical sensitivity and precisionwhen compared with concentric nebuliz-ers is compensated by the fact that thecrossflow design is far more rugged forroutine use. Figure 6 shows a cross sec-tion of a crossflow nebulizer.

Microflow design. A new breed of nebu-lizers is being developed for ICP-MScalled microflow nebulizers, which aredesigned to operate at much lower sam-ple flows. While conventional nebulizershave a sample uptake rate of about1 mL/min, microflow nebulizers typicallyrun at less than 0.1 mL/min. They arebased on the concentric principle, but

sure only the small droplets get through,but the most common way is to use adouble-pass spray chamber where theaerosol emerges from the nebulizer andis directed into a central tube running thewhole length of the chamber. Thedroplets travel the length of this tube,where the large droplets (greater than~10 µm in diameter) fall out by gravityand exit through the drain tube at the endof the spray chamber. The fine droplets(~5–10 µm in diameter) then pass be-tween the outer wall and the central tube,where they eventually emerge from thespray chamber and are transported intothe sample injector of the plasma torch(3). Although many different designs areavailable, the spray chamber’s main func-tion is to allow only the smallest dropletsinto the plasma for dissociation, atomiza-tion, and finally ionization of the sample’selemental components. Figure 4 presentsa simplified schematic of this process.

Let us now look at the different nebu-lizer and spray chamber designs that aremost commonly used in ICP-MS. This ar-ticle cannot cover every type available be-cause a huge market has developed overthe past few years for application-specificcustomized sample introduction compo-nents. This market created an industry ofsmall OEM (original equipment manufac-turers) companies that manufacture partsfor instrument companies as well as sell-ing directly to ICP-MS users.

NEBULIZERSBy far the most common design used forICP-MS is the pneumatic nebulizer,which uses mechanical forces of a gasflow (normally argon at a pressure of20–30 psi) to generate the sampleaerosol. The most popular designs ofpneumatic nebulizers include concentric,microconcentric, microflow, and cross-flow. They are usually made from glass,but other nebulizer materials, such asvarious kinds of polymers, are becomingmore popular, particularly for highly cor-rosive samples and specialized applica-tions. I want to emphasize at this pointthat nebulizers designed for use with ICP-optical emission spectroscopy (OES) arenot recommended for ICP-MS. This factresults from a limitation in total dissolvedsolids (TDS) that can be put into the ICP-MS interface area. Because the orificesizes of the sampler and skimmer conesused in ICP-MS are so small (~0.6–1.2mm), the concentration of matrix compo-nents must generally be kept below 0.2%


Figure 2. Diagram of the ICP-MS sampleintroduction area.

Figure 3. Conceptual representation ofaerosol generation with an ICP-MSnebulizer.

Figure 4. Simplified representation of theseparation of large and fine droplets in thespray chamber.

www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

they usually operate at higher gas pres-sure to accommodate the lower sampleflow rates. The extremely low uptake ratemakes them ideal for applications withlimited sample volume or where the sam-ple or analyte is prone to sample intro-duction memory effects. These nebuliz-ers and their components are typically

constructed from polymer materials suchas polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), per-fluoroalkoxy (PFA), or polyvinylidene flu-oride (PVDF). In fact, their excellent cor-rosion resistance means that they havenaturally low blank levels. This character-istic, together with their ability to handlesmall sample volumes such as vapor-phase decomposition (VPD) applications,makes them an ideal choice for semicon-ductor labs that are carrying out ultra-trace element analysis (5). A typical mi-croflow nebulizer made from PFA isshown in Figure 7.

SPRAY CHAMBERSLet us now turn our attention to spraychambers. Basically two designs are usedin commercial ICP-MS instrumentation— double pass and cyclonic spray cham-bers. The double pass is by far the most

common, with the cyclonic type gainingin popularity. Another type of spray cham-ber based on the impact bead design(first developed for flame AA and thenadapted for ICP-OES) was tried on theearly ICP-MS systems with limited suc-cess, but is not generally used today. Asmentioned earlier, the function of thespray chamber is to reject the largeraerosol droplets and also to smooth outpulses produced by the peristaltic pump.In addition, some ICP-MS spray cham-bers are externally cooled (typically to2–5 °C) for thermal stability of the sam-ple and to minimize the amount of solventgoing into the plasma. This can have anumber of beneficial effects, dependingon the application, but the main benefitsare reduction of oxide species and theability to aspirate volatile organicsolvents.


Figure 5. Diagram of a typical concentric nebulizer. Figure 6. Schematic of a crossflow nebulizer.

Figure 7. A typical concentric microflownebulizer. Printed with permission from Ele-mental Scientific (Omaha, NE).

Figure 8. Schematic of a Scott double-pass spray chamber (shownwith crossflow nebulizer). Printed with permission of PerkinElmerInstruments (Norwalk, CT).

Figure 9. Schematic of a cyclonic spray chamber (shown withconcentric nebulizer).

58 SPECTROSCOPY 16(5) MAY 2001

60 SPECTROSCOPY 16(5) MAY 2001 www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

Double pass. By far the most commondesign of double-pass spray chamber isthe Scott design, which selects the smalldroplets by directing the aerosol into acentral tube. The larger droplets emergefrom the tube and, by gravity, exit thespray chamber via a drain tube. The liq-uid in the drain tube is kept at positivepressure (usually by way of a loop),which forces the small droplets back be-tween the outer wall and the central tube,where they emerge from the spray cham-ber into the sample injector of the plasmatorch. Scott double-pass spray chamberscome in a variety of shapes, sizes, andmaterials, but are generally consideredthe most rugged design for routine use.Figure 8 shows a Scott spray chambermade of a polysulfide-type material, cou-pled to a crossflow nebulizer.

Cyclonic spray chamber. The cyclonicspray chamber operates by centrifugalforce. Droplets are discriminated accord-ing to their size by means of a vortex pro-duced by the tangential flow of the sam-ple aerosol and argon gas inside thechamber. Smaller droplets are carried

with the gas stream into the ICP-MS,while the larger droplets impinge on thewalls and fall out through the drain. It isgenerally accepted that a cyclonic spraychamber has a higher sampling effi-ciency, which, for clean samples, trans-lates into higher sensitivity and lower de-tection limits. However, the droplet sizedistribution appears to be different from adouble-pass design, and for certain typesof samples, can give slightly inferior pre-cision. An excellent evaluation of the ca-pabilities of a cyclonic spray chamber wasmade by Beres and co-workers (6). Fig-ure 9 shows a cyclonic spray chamberconnected to a concentric nebulizer.

Many other nonstandard sample intro-duction devices are available that are notdescribed in this particular tutorial, suchas ultrasonic nebulization, membrane de-solvation, flow injection, direct injection,electrothermal vaporization, and laser ab-lation. However, they are becoming moreand more important, particularly as ICP-MS users are demanding higher perfor-mance and more flexibility. For that rea-son, they will be addressed in a separate

Circle 51

tutorial at the end of this series.

REFERENCES(1) R. A. Browner and A.W. Boorn, Anal.

Chem. 56, 786–798A (1984).(2) B.L. Sharp, Analytical Atomic Spectrome-

try 3, 613 (1980).(3) L.C. Bates and J.W. Olesik, Journal of An-

alytical Atomic Spectrometry 5(3), 239(1990).

(4) R.S. Houk, Anal. Chem. 56, 97A (1986).(5) E. Debrah, S. A. Beres, T.J. Gluodennis,

R.J. Thomas, and E.R. Denoyer, AtomicSpectroscopy, 197–202 (September 1995).

(6) S. A. Beres, P. H. Bruckner, and E.R. De-noyer, Atomic Spectroscopy, 96–99(March/April 1994).

Robert Thomas is the principal of his ownfreelance writing and scientific marketingconsulting company, Scientific Solutions,based in Gaithersburg, MD. He specializesin trace element analysis and can be con-tacted by e-mail at [email protected] or via his web site at www.scientificsolutions1.com. ◆

TRAINING COURSESThermo Nicolet (Madison, WI) is offering afree Spring 2001 Spectroscopic SolutionsSeminar Series. The seminars will coverbasic FT-IR spectroscopy, microspec-troscopy, dispersive Raman microscopy,Raman spectroscopy, and specializedsampling techniques. This year’s sched-ule includes the following seminars:

May 22 at the Syracuse Sheraton,Syracuse, NY; May 24 at the Wynd-ham Westborough Hotel, Westbor-ough, MA; May 24 at the MarriottOak Brook, Oak Brook, IL; June 5 atthe East Lansing Marriott, East Lans-ing, MI; June 5 at the Embassy Suites,Overland Park, KS; June 7 at the Sher-aton Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN;June 12 at the Delta Meadowvale Conference Center, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; June 12 at the Em-bassy Suites, Brookfield, WI; July 10at the Coast Terrace Inn, Edmonton,Alberta, Canada; and July 26 at the AlaMoana Hotel, Honolulu, HI.For more information, contact Thermo

Nicolet, (800) 201-8132 fax: (608) 273-5046, e-mail: [email protected], web site: www.thermonicolet.com. ◆

“News Spectrum” continued from page 13


26 SPECTROSCOPY 16(6) JUNE 2001 www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

Part III of Robert Thomas’ series on induc-tively coupled plasma–mass spectroscopy(ICP-MS) looks at the area where the ionsare generated — the plasma discharge. Hegives a brief historical perspective of someof the common analytical plasmas usedover the years and discusses the compo-nents that are used to create the ICP. Hefinishes by explaining the fundamentalprinciples of formation of a plasma dis-charge and how it is used to convert thesample aerosol into a stream of positivelycharged ions.

Inductively coupled plasmas are by farthe most common type of plasmasources used in today’s commercialICP–optical emission spectrometry(OES) and ICP-MS instrumentation.

However, it wasn’t always that way. In theearly days, when researchers were at-tempting to find the ideal plasma sourceto use for spectrometric studies, it wasunclear which approach would prove tobe the most successful. In addition toICPs, some of the other novel plasmasources developed were direct currentplasmas (DCP) and microwave-inducedplasmas (MIP). A DCP is formed when agas (usually argon) is introduced into ahigh current flowing between two orthree electrodes. Ionization of the gasproduces an inverted Y-shaped plasma.Unfortunately, early DCP instrumenta-tion was prone to interference effects andalso had some usability and reliabilityproblems. For these reasons, the tech-nique never became widely accepted bythe analytical community (1). However,its one major benefit was that it could as-pirate high levels of dissolved or sus-pended solids, because there was no re-strictive sample injector for the solidmaterial to block. This feature alonemade it attractive for some laboratories,and once the initial limitations of DCPs

were better understood, the techniquebecame more accepted. In fact, for thosewho want a DCP excitation source cou-pled with an optical emission instrumenttoday, an Echelle-based grating using asolid-state detector is commerciallyavailable (2).

Limitations in the DCP approach led tothe development of electrodeless plasma,of which the MIP was the simplest form.In this system, microwave energy (typi-cally 100–200 W) is supplied to the plasmagas from an excitation cavity around aglass or quartz tube. The plasma dis-charge in the form of a ring is generatedinside the tube. Unfortunately, eventhough the discharge achieves a veryhigh power density, the high excitationtemperatures exist only along a central fil-ament. The bulk of the MIP never getshotter than 2000–3000 K, which means itis prone to very severe matrix effects. Inaddition, they are easily extinguished dur-

ing aspiration of liquid samples. For thesereasons, they have had limited success asan emission source, because they are notconsidered robust enough for the analysisof real-world, solution-based samples.However, they have gained acceptance asan ion source for mass spectrometry (3)and also as emission-based detectors forgas chromatography.

Because of the limitations of the DCPand MIP approaches, ICPs became thedominant focus of research for both opti-cal emission and mass spectrometricstudies. As early as 1964, Greenfield andco-workers reported that an atmospheric-pressure ICP coupled with OES could beused for elemental analysis (4). Althoughcrude by today’s standards, the systemshowed the enormous possibilities of theICP as an excitation source and most defi-nitely opened the door in the early 1980sto the even more exciting potential of us-ing the ICP to generate ions (5).


A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart III: The Plasma Source


Iondetector

MSinterface

ICP torchIon optics

Spraychamber

Nebulizer

Mass separationdevice

Turbomolecularpump

Turbomolecularpump

Mechanicalpump

Radio frequencypower supply

Figure 1. Schematic of an ICP-MS system showing the location of the plasma torch and radiofrequency (RF) power supply.


nents that are used to generate thesource: a plasma torch, a radio frequency(RF) coil, and RF power supply. Figure 1shows their proximity to the rest of theinstrument; Figure 2 is a more detailedview of the plasma torch and RF coil rela-tive to the MS interface.

The plasma torch consists of three con-centric tubes, which are usually madefrom quartz. In Figure 2, these are shownas the outer tube, middle tube, and sam-ple injector. The torch can either be one-piece with all three tubes connected, or itcan be a demountable design in whichthe tubes and the sample injector are sep-arate. The gas (usually argon) used toform the plasma (plasma gas) is passedbetween the outer and middle tubes at aflow rate of ;12–17 L/min. A second gasflow, the auxiliary gas, passes betweenthe middle tube and the sample injectorat ;1 L/min and is used to change theposition of the base of the plasma relativeto the tube and the injector. A third gasflow, the nebulizer gas, also flowing at;1 L/min carries the sample, in the formof a fine-droplet aerosol, from the sampleintroduction system (for details, see PartII of this series: Spectroscopy 16[5],56–60 [2001]) and physically punches achannel through the center of the plasma.The sample injector is often made frommaterials other than quartz, such as alu-mina, platinum, and sapphire, if highlycorrosive materials need to be analyzed.It is worth mentioning that although ar-gon is the most suitable gas to use for allthree flows, there are analytical benefitsin using other gas mixtures, especially inthe nebulizer flow (6). The plasma torch

THE PLASMA TORCHBefore we take a look at the fundamentalprinciples behind the creation of an in-ductively coupled plasma used in ICP-MS, let us take a look at the basic compo-


Plasma

Nebulizer gas

Interface Outertube

RFcoil

Sample injector

RF power

Middletube

Plasmagas

Auxiliarygas

Figure 2. Detailed view of a plasma torchand RF coil relative to the ICP-MS interface.

Quartztorch

Collision-inducedionization of argon

Formation of inductivelycoupled plasma

Sample introducedthrough sample injector

Loadcoil

Tangential flowof argon gas

Electromagneticfield High voltage

spark

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Figure 3. (right) Schematic of an ICP torchand load coil showing how the inductivelycoupled plasma is formed. (a) A tangentialflow of argon gas is passed between theouter and middle tube of the quartz torch.(b) RF power is applied to the load coil,producing an intense electromagnetic field.(c) A high-voltage spark produces free elec-trons. (d) Free electrons are accelerated bythe RF field, causing collisions and ioniza-tion of the argon gas. (e) The ICP is formedat the open end of the quartz torch. Thesample is introduced into the plasma viathe sample injector.

Circle 21

JUNE 2001 16(6) SPECTROSCOPY 29

Initialradiationzone

Normalanalyticalzone

10,000 K

Preheatingzone

6500 K

6000 K

7500 K 8000 K

Figure 4. Different temperature zones in the plasma.

Droplet (Desolvation) Solid (Vaporization) Gas (Atomization) Atom (Ionization) Ion

From sample injector To mass spectrometer

M(H2O)1 X2 (MX)n MX M M1

Figure 5. Mechanism of conversion of a droplet to a positive ion in the ICP.

is mounted horizontally and positionedcentrally in the RF coil, approximately10–20 mm from the interface. It must beemphasized that the coil used in an ICP-MS plasma is slightly different from theone used in ICP-OES. In all plasmas,there is a potential difference of a fewhundred volts produced by capacitivecoupling between the RF coil and theplasma. In an ICP mass spectrometer,this would result in a secondary dis-charge between the plasma and the inter-face cone, which could negatively affectthe performance of the instrument. Tocompensate for this, the coil must begrounded to keep the interface region asclose to zero potential as possible. I willdiscuss the full implications of this ingreater detail in Part IV of this series.

FORMATION OF AN ICP DISCHARGELet us now discuss the mechanism of for-mation of the plasma discharge. First, atangential (spiral) flow of argon gas is di-rected between the outer and middle tubeof a quartz torch. A load coil, usually cop-per, surrounds the top end of the torchand is connected to a radio frequencygenerator. When RF power (typically750–1500 W, depending on the sample) isapplied to the load coil, an alternatingcurrent oscillates within the coil at a ratecorresponding to the frequency of thegenerator. In most ICP generators thisfrequency is either 27 or 40 MHz. ThisRF oscillation of the current in the coilcauses an intense electromagnetic field tobe created in the area at the top of thetorch. With argon gas flowing throughthe torch, a high-voltage spark is appliedto the gas, which causes some electronsto be stripped from their argon atoms.These electrons, which are caught up andaccelerated in the magnetic field, thencollide with other argon atoms, strippingoff still more electrons. This collision-

induced ionization of the argon continuesin a chain reaction, breaking down thegas into argon atoms, argon ions, andelectrons, forming what is known as aninductively coupled plasma discharge.The ICP discharge is then sustainedwithin the torch and load coil as RF en-ergy is continually transferred to itthrough the inductive coupling process.The sample aerosol is then introducedinto the plasma through a third tubecalled the sample injector. This wholeprocess is conceptionally shown inFigure 3.

THE FUNCTION OF THE RF GENERATORAlthough the principles of an RF powersupply have not changed since the workof Greenfield (4), the components havebecome significantly smaller. Some of theearly generators that used nitrogen or airrequired 5–10 kW of power to sustain theplasma discharge — and literally took uphalf the room. Most of today’s generatorsuse solid-state electronic components,which means that vacuum power ampli-fier tubes are no longer required. Thismakes modern instruments significantlysmaller and, because vacuum tubes werenotoriously unreliable and unstable, farmore suitable for routine operation.

As mentioned previously, two frequen-cies have typically been used for ICP RFgenerators: 27 and 40 MHz. These fre-quencies have been set aside specificallyfor RF applications of this kind, so theywill not interfere with other communica-tion-based frequencies. The early RF gen-erators used 27 MHz, while the more re-cent designs favor 40 MHz. Thereappears to be no significant analytical ad-vantage of one type over the other. How-ever, it is worth mentioning that the 40-MHz design typically runs at lower powerlevels, which produces lower signal inten-sity and reduced background levels. Be-

cause it uses slightly lower power, thismight be considered advantageous when it comes to long-term use of thegenerator.

The more important consideration isthe coupling efficiency of the RF genera-tor to the coil. The majority of modernsolid-state RF generators are on the orderof 70–75% efficient, meaning that 70–75%of the delivered power actually makes itinto the plasma. This wasn’t always thecase, and some of the older vacuumtube–designed generators were notori-ously inefficient; some of them experi-enced more than a 50% power loss. An-other important criterion to consider isthe way the matching network compen-sates for changes in impedance (a mater-ial’s resistance to the flow of an electriccurrent) produced by the sample’s matrixcomponents or differences in solventvolatility. In older crystal-controlled gen-erators, this was usually done with servo-driven capacitors. They worked very wellwith most sample types, but because theywere mechanical devices, they struggledto compensate for very rapid impedancechanges produced by some samples. As aresult, the plasma was easily extin-guished, particularly during aspiration ofvolatile organic solvents.

These problems were partially over-come by the use of free-running RF gen-erators, in which the matching networkwas based on electronic tuning of smallchanges in frequency brought about bythe sample solvent or matrix components.The major benefit of this approach wasthat compensation for impedancechanges was virtually instantaneous be-cause there were no moving parts. Thisallowed for the successful analysis ofmany sample types that would probablyhave extinguished the plasma of acrystal-controlled generator.



IONIZATION OF THE SAMPLETo better understand what happens to thesample on its journey through the plasmasource, it is important to understand thedifferent heating zones within the dis-charge. Figure 4 shows a cross-sectionalrepresentation of the discharge alongwith the approximate temperatures fordifferent regions of the plasma.

zone before it eventually becomes a posi-tively charged ion in the analytical zone.To explain this in a very simplistic way,let’s assume that the element exists as atrace metal salt in solution. The first stepthat takes place is desolvation of thedroplet. With the water moleculesstripped away, it then becomes a verysmall solid particle. As the sample movesfurther into the plasma, the solid particlechanges first into a gaseous form andthen into a ground-state atom. The finalprocess of conversion of an atom to anion is achieved mainly by collisions of en-ergetic argon electrons (and to a lesserextent by argon ions) with the ground-state atom (7). The ion then emergesfrom the plasma and is directed into theinterface of the mass spectrometer (fordetails on the mechanisms of ion genera-tion, please refer to Part I of this series:Spectroscopy 16[4], 38–42 [2001]). Thisprocess of conversion of droplets intoions is represented in Figure 5.

The next installment of this series willfocus on probably the most crucial areaof an ICP mass spectrometer — the inter-face region — where the ions generatedin the atmospheric plasma have to besampled with consistency and electricalintegrity by the mass spectrometer,which is under extremely high vacuum.

REFERENCES(1) A.L. Gray, Analyst 100, 289–299 (1975).(2) G.N. Coleman, D.E. Miller, and R.W.

Stark, Am. Lab. 30(4), 33R (1998).(3) D.J. Douglas and J.B. French, Anal.

Chem. 53, 37-41 (1981).(4) S. Greenfield, I.L. Jones, and C.T. Berry,

Analyst 89, 713–720 (1964).(5) R.S. Houk, V. A. Fassel, and H.J. Svec,

Dyn. Mass Spectrom. 6, 234 (1981).(6) J.W. Lam and J.W. McLaren, J. Anal.

Atom. Spectom. 5, 419–424 (1990).(7) T. Hasegawa and H. Haraguchi, ICPs in

Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, A.Montaser and D.W. Golightly, Eds., 2d ed.(VCH, New York, 1992).

Robert Thomas is the principal of his ownfreelance writing and scientific marketingconsulting company, Scientific Solutions,based in Gaithersburg, MD. He specializesin trace-element analysis and can be con-tacted by e-mail at [email protected] or via his web site at www.scientificsolutions1.com. ◆


As mentioned previously, the sampleaerosol enters the injector via the spraychamber. When it exits the sample injec-tor, it is moving at such a velocity that itphysically punches a hole through thecenter of the plasma discharge. It thengoes through a number of physicalchanges, starting at the preheating zoneand continuing through the radiation

Circle 22

www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

The interface region is probably themost critical area of the whole induc-tively coupled plasma mass spec-trometry (ICP-MS) system. It cer-tainly gave the early pioneers of the

technique the most problems to over-come. Although we take all the benefitsof ICP-MS for granted, the process of tak-ing a liquid sample, generating an aerosolthat is suitable for ionization in theplasma, and then sampling a representa-tive number of analyte ions, transportingthem through the interface, focusingthem via the ion optics into the massspectrometer, finally ending up with de-tection and conversion to an electronicsignal, are not trivial tasks. Each part ofthe journey has its own unique problemsto overcome but probably the most chal-lenging is the movement of the ions fromthe plasma to the mass spectrometer.Let’s begin by explaining how the ion-

sampling process works, which will givereaders an insight into the many prob-lems faced by the early researchers.

SAMPLING THE IONSFigure 1 shows the proximity of the inter-face region to the rest of the instrument.The role of the interface is to transportthe ions efficiently, consistently, and withelectrical integrity from the plasma,which is at atmospheric pressure (760Torr), to the mass spectrometer analyzerregion, which is at approximately 1026

Torr. One first achieves this by directingthe ions into the interface region. The in-terface consists of two metallic coneswith very small orifices, which are main-tained at a vacuum of ;2 Torr with a me-chanical roughing pump. After the ionsare generated in the plasma, they passthrough the first cone, known as the sam-pler cone, which has an orifice diameter

of 0.8–1.2 mm. From there they travel ashort distance to the skimmer cone,which is generally sharper than the sam-pler cone and has a much smaller orifice(0.4–0.8 mm i.d.). Both cones are usuallymade of nickel, but they can be made ofmaterials such as platinum that are farmore tolerant to corrosive liquids. To re-duce the effects of the high-temperatureplasma on the cones, the interface hous-ing is water-cooled and made from a ma-terial that dissipates heat easily, such ascopper or aluminum. The ions thenemerge from the skimmer cone, wherethey are directed through the ion optics,and finally are guided into the mass sepa-ration device. Figure 2 shows the inter-face region in greater detail; Figure 3shows a close-up of the sampler andskimmer cones.

CAPACITIVE COUPLING This process sounds fairly straight-forward but proved very problematic dur-ing the early development of ICP-MS be-cause of an undesired electrostatic(capacitive) coupling between the loadcoil and the plasma discharge, producinga potential difference of 100–200 V. Al-though this potential is a physical charac-teristic of all inductively coupled plasmadischarges, it is particularly serious in anICP mass spectrometer because the ca-pacitive coupling creates an electrical dis-charge between the plasma and the sam-pler cone. This discharge, commonlycalled the pinch effect or secondary dis-charge, shows itself as arcing in the re-gion where the plasma is in contact withthe sampler cone (1). This process isshown very simplistically in Figure 4.

If not taken care of, this arcing cancause all kinds of problems, including anincrease in doubly charged interferingspecies, a wide kinetic energy spread ofsampled ions, formation of ions gener-


A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart IV: The Interface Region


Iondetector

MSinterface

ICP torchIon optics

Spraychamber

Nebulizer


Turbomolecularpump

Turbomolecularpump

Mechanicalpump

Radio power supply

Figure 1. Schematic of an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) system,showing the proximity of the interface region.

26 SPECTROSCOPY 16(7) JULY 2001

ated from the sampler cone, and a de-creased orifice lifetime. These problemswere reported by many of the early re-searchers of the technique (2, 3). In fact,because the arcing increased with sam-pler cone orifice size, the source of thesecondary discharge was originallythought to be the result of an electro-gas-dynamic effect, which produced an in-crease in electron density at the orifice(4). After many experiments it was even-tually realized that the secondary dis-charge was a result of electrostatic cou-pling of the load coil to the plasma. Theproblem was first eliminated by ground-ing the induction coil at the center, whichhad the effect of reducing the radio fre-quency (RF) potential to a few volts. Thiseffect can be seen in Figure 5, taken fromone of the early papers, which shows thereduction in plasma potential as the coil isgrounded at different positions (turns)along its length.

Originally, the grounding was imple-mented by attaching a physical ground-ing strap from the center turn of the coilto the interface housing. In today’s instru-mentation the grounding is achieved in anumber of different ways, depending onthe design of the interface. Some of themost popular designs include balancingthe oscillator inside the circuitry of theRF generator (5); positioning a groundedshield or plate between the coil and theplasma torch (6); or using two interlacedcoils where the RF fields go in opposingdirections (7). They all work differentlybut achieve a similar result of reducing oreliminating the secondary discharge.

ION KINETIC ENERGYThe impact of a secondary discharge can-

not be overestimated with respect to its ef-fect on the kinetic energy of the ions beingsampled. It is well documented that the en-ergy spread of the ions entering the massspectrometer must be as low as possible toensure that they can all be focused effi-ciently and with full electrical integrity bythe ion optics and the mass separation de-vice. When the ions emerge from the ar-gon plasma, they will all have different ki-netic energies based on their mass-to-change ratio. Their velocities should all besimilar because they are controlled byrapid expansion of the bulk plasma, whichwill be neutral as long as it is maintained atzero potential. As the ion beam passesthrough the sampler cone into the skim-mer cone, expansion will take place, but itscomposition and integrity will be main-tained, assuming the plasma is neutral.This can be seen in Figure 6.

Electrodynamic forces do not play arole as the ions enter the sampler or theskimmer because the distance overwhich the ions exert an influence on eachother (known as the Debye length) issmall (typically 1023–1024 mm) com-pared with the diameter of the orifice(0.5–1.0 mm) (8), as Figure 7 shows.

It is therefore clear that maintaining aneutral plasma is of paramount impor-tance to guarantee electrical integrity ofthe ion beam as it passes through the in-terface region. If a secondary dischargeis present, it changes the electrical char-acteristics of the plasma, which will affectthe kinetic energy of the ions differently,depending on their mass. If the plasma isat zero potential, the ion energy spread isin the order of 5–10 eV. However, if a sec-ondary discharge is present, it results ina much wider spread of ion energies en-

tering the mass spectrometer (typically20–40 eV), which makes ion focusing farmore complicated (8).

BENEFITS OF A WELL-DESIGNEDINTERFACEThe benefits of a well-designed interfaceare not readily obvious if simple aqueoussamples are analyzed using only one setof operating conditions. However, it be-comes more apparent when many differ-ent sample types are being analyzed, re-quiring different operating parameters. Atrue test of the design of the interface oc-curs when plasma conditions need to bechanged, when the sample matrixchanges, or when a dry sample aerosol isbeing introduced into the ICP-MS. Ana-lytical scenarios like these have the po-tential to induce a secondary discharge,change the kinetic energy of the ions en-tering the mass spectrometer, and affectthe tuning of the ion optics. It is therefore


Plasmatorch

Ionoptics

~2 Torrvacuum

SampleconeSkimmer

cone

RF coil

Figure 2. Detailed view of the interfaceregion.

Interfacehousing

Samplercone

Skimmercone

Figure 3. Close-up view of the sampler andskimmer cones. (Courtesy PerkinElmer Instruments, Norwalk, CT.)

Secondarydischarge

Figure 4. Interface area affected by sec-ondary discharge.

100

80

60

40

20

00.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Load coil turns

Plas

ma

pote

ntia

l

2.0 2.5 3.0

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Figure 5. Reduction in plasma potential asthe load coil is grounded at different posi-tions (turns) along its length.

JULY 2001 16(7) SPECTROSCOPY 27

28 SPECTROSCOPY 16(7) JULY 2001 www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

critical that the interface groundingmechanism can handle these types ofreal-world applications, of which typicalexamples include• The use of cool-plasma conditions. It isstandard practice today to use cool-plasma conditions (500–700 W power and1.0–1.3 L/min nebulizer gas flow) tolower the plasma temperature and reduceargon-based polyatomic interferences

such as 40Ar16O, 40Ar, and 38ArH, in thedetermination of difficult elements like56Fe, 40Ca, and 39K. Such dramaticchanges from normal operating condi-tions (1000 W, 0.8 L/min) will affect theelectrical characteristics of the plasma. • Running volatile organic solvents. Ana-lyzing oil or organic-based samples re-quires a chilled spray chamber (typically220 °C) or a membrane desolvation sys-

tem to reduce the solvent loading on theplasma. In addition, higher RF power(1300–1500 W) and lower nebulizer gasflow (0.4–0.8 L/min) are required to dis-sociate the organic components in thesample. A reduction in the amount of sol-vent entering the plasma combined withhigher power and lower nebulizer gasflow translate into a hotter plasma and achange in its ionization mechanism. • Reducing oxides. The formation of ox-ide species can be problematic in somesample types. For example, in geochemi-cal applications it is quite common to sac-rifice sensitivity by lowering the nebulizergas flow and increasing the RF power toreduce the formation of rare earth ox-ides, which can interfere spectrally withthe determination of other analytes. Un-fortunately these conditions have the po-tential to induce a secondary discharge.• Running a “dry” plasma. Samplingaccessories such as membrane desolva-tors, laser ablation systems, and elec-trothermal vaporization devices are beingused more routinely to enhance the flexi-bility of ICP-MS. The major difference be-tween these sampling devices and a con-ventional liquid sample introductionsystem, is that they generate a “dry” sam-ple aerosol, which requires totally differ-ent operating conditions compared with aconventional “wet” plasma. An aerosolcontaining no solvent can have a dramaticeffect on the ionization conditions in theplasma.

Even though most modern ICP-MS in-terfaces have been designed to minimizethe effects of the secondary discharge, it


Ion optics

Skimmer Sampler

760 Torr3–4 TorrExpansion ofion beam

Ion beamSampleaerosol

Figure 6. The composition of the ion beam is maintained, assuming a neutral plasma.

Interfacecone

Debyelength

Orificediameter

Figure 7. Electrodynamic forces do not af-fect the composition of the ion beam enter-ing the sampler or the skimmer cone.

Circle 17

“Tutorial” continued on page 34

34 SPECTROSCOPY 16(7) JULY 2001 www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

of the vendor) have been checked to en-sure compliance with the regulations.The audit should be planned and shouldcover items such as the design and pro-gramming phases, product testing and re-lease, documentation, and support; a re-port of the audit should be produced afterthe visit. Two published articles have cov-ered vendor audits in more detail (3, 4).

The minimum audit is a remote vendoraudit using a checklist that the vendorcompletes and returns to you. This isusually easy to complete, but the writer ofthe checklist must ensure that the ques-tions are written in a way that can be un-derstood by the recipient, because lan-guage and cultural issues could affect aremote checklist. Moreover, there is littleway of checking the answers you receive.However, for smaller software systems —and some spectrometers fall into this cat-egory — a remote audit is a cost-effectiveway of getting information on how a ven-dor carries out its development process,so long as you know and understand itslimitations.

SYSTEM SELECTION: PART TWOIf the vendor audit, price quote, instru-ment, and software are all acceptable,you’ll be raising a capital expenditurerequest (or whatever it is called in yourorganization) and then generating a pur-chase order. The quote and the purchaseorder are a link in the validation chain;they provide a link into the next phase ofthe validation life cycle: qualification. Thepurchase order is the first stage in defin-ing the initial configuration of the system,as we’ll discover in the next article in thisseries.

REFERENCES(1) R.D. McDowall, Spectroscopy 16(2),

32–43 (2001).(2) IEEE Standard 1012-1986, “Software Vali-

dation and Verification Plans,” Institute ofElectronic and Electrical Engineers, Pis-cataway, NJ, USA.

(3) R.D. McDowall, Sci. Data Mgmt. 2(2), 8(1998).

(4) R.D. McDowall, Sci. Data Mgmt. 2(3), 8(1998). ◆

F O C U S O N Q U A L I T Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

shouldn’t be taken for granted that theycan all handle changes in operating con-ditions and matrix components with thesame amount of ease. The most notice-able problems that have been reportedinclude spectral peaks of the cone mater-ial appearing in the blank (9); erosion ordiscoloration of the sampling cones;widely different optimum plasma condi-tions for different masses (10); and in-creased frequency of tuning the ion op-tics (8). Of all these, probably the mostinconvenient problem is regular opti-mization of the lens voltages, becauseslight changes in plasma conditions canproduce significant changes in ion ener-gies, which require regular retuning ofthe ion optics. Even though most instru-ments have computer-controlled ion op-tics, it becomes another variable thatmust be optimized. This isn’t a majorproblem but might be considered an in-convenience for a high–sample through-put lab. There is no question that theplasma discharge, interface region, andion optics all have to be designed in con-cert to ensure that the instrument canhandle a wide range of operating condi-tions and sample types. The role of theion optics will be discussed in greater de-tail in the next installment of this series.

“Tutorial” continued from page 34

Circle 22, 23

REFERENCES(1) A.L. Gray and A.R. Date, Analyst 108,

1033 (1983).(2) R.S. Houk, V. A. Fassel, and H.J. Svec, Dy-

namic Mass Spectrosc. 6, 234 (1981).(3) A.R. Date and A.L. Gray, Analyst 106,

1255 (1981).(4) A.L. Gray and A.R. Date, Dynamic Mass

Spectrosc. 6, 252 (1981).(5) S.D. Tanner, J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 10,

905 (1995).(6) K. Sakata and K. Kawabata, Spectrochim.

Acta 49B, 1027 (1994).(7) S. Georgitus, M. Plantz, poster paper pre-

sented at the Winter Conference onPlasma Spectrochemistry, FP4, FortLauderdale, FL (1996).

(8) D.J. Douglas and J.B. French, Spec-trochim. Acta 41B, 3, 197 (1986).

(9) D.J. Douglas, Can. J. Spectrosc. 34, 2(1089).

(10) J.E. Fulford and D.J. Douglas, Appl. Spec-trosc. 40, 7 (1986).

Robert Thomas has more than 30 years ex-perience in trace element analysis. He is theprincipal of his own freelance writing andscientific consulting company, Scientific So-lutions, based in Gaithersburg, MD. He canbe contacted by e-mail at [email protected] or via his web site atwww.scientificsolutions1.com.◆

44 SPECTROSCOPY 16(10) OCTOBER 2001 www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

Part VI of the series on inductively coupledplasma–mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) fun-damentals deals with the heart of the sys-tem — the mass separation device. Some-times called the mass analyzer, it is theregion of the ICP mass spectrometer thatseparates the ions according to their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z). This selectionprocess is achieved in a number of differentways, depending on the mass separationdevice, but they all have one common goal:to separate the ions of interest from all theother nonanalyte, matrix, solvent, and argon-based ions.

Although inductively coupledplasma–mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) was commercialized in 1983,the first 10 years of its developmentprimarily used traditional quadru-

pole mass filter technology to separatethe ions of interest. These worked excep-tionally well for most applications butproved to have limitations in determiningdifficult elements or dealing with more-complex sample matrices. This led to the

development of alternative mass separa-tion devices that pushed the capabilitiesof ICP-MS so it could be used for morechallenging applications. Before we dis-cuss these different mass spectrometersin greater detail, let’s take a look at the lo-cation of the mass analyzer in relation tothe ion optics and the detector. Figure 1shows this in greater detail.

As we can see, the mass analyzer is po-sitioned between the ion optics and thedetector and is maintained at a vacuum ofapproximately 1026 Torr with a secondturbomolecular pump. Assuming the ionsare emerging from the ion optics at theoptimum kinetic energy (1), they areready to be separated according to theirmass-to-charge ratio by the mass ana-lyzer. There are basically four kinds ofcommercially available mass analyzers:quadrupole mass filters, double focusingmagnetic sector, time-of-flight, andcollision–reaction cell technology. Theyall have their own strengths and weak-nesses, which we will discuss in greaterdetail in the next few installments of this

column. Let’s first begin with the mostcommon of the mass separation devicesused in ICP-MS, the quadrupole mass filter.

QUADRUPOLE MASS FILTERTECHNOLOGYDeveloped in the early 1980s,quadrupole-based systems represent ap-proximately 90% of all ICP mass spec-trometers used today. This design wasthe first to be commercialized; as a result,today’s quadrupole ICP-MS technology isconsidered a very mature, routine, high-throughput, trace-element technique. Aquadrupole consists of four cylindrical orhyperbolic metallic rods of the samelength and diameter. They are typicallymade of stainless steel or molybdenum,and sometimes have a ceramic coatingfor corrosion resistance. Quadrupolesused in ICP-MS are typically 15–20 cm inlength and about 1 cm in diameter andoperate at a frequency of 2–3 MHz.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION By placing a direct current (dc) field onone pair of rods and a radio frequency(rf) field on the opposite pair, ions of a se-lected mass are allowed to pass throughthe rods to the detector, while the othersare ejected from the quadrupole. Figure 2shows this in greater detail.

In this simplified example, the analyteion (black) and four other ions (colored)have arrived at the entrance to the fourrods of the quadrupole. When a particu-lar rf-dc voltage is applied to the rods, thepositive or negative bias on the rods willelectrostatically steer the analyte ion ofinterest down the middle of the four rodsto the end, where it will emerge and beconverted to an electrical pulse by the de-tector. The other ions of different mass-to-charge ratios will pass through thespaces between the rods and be ejected


Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart VI — The Mass Analyzer


Iondetector

MSinterface

ICP torchIon optics

Spraychamber

Nebulizer


Turbomolecularpump

Turbomolecularpump

Mechanicalpump

RFpowersupply

Figure 1. Schematic of an ICP-MS system showing the location of the mass separation device.

OCTOBER 2001 16(10) SPECTROSCOPY 45

from the quadrupole. This scanningprocess is then repeated for another ana-lyte at a completely different mass-to-charge ratio until all the analytes in a mul-tielement analysis have been measured.The process for the detection of one par-ticular mass in a multielement run is rep-resented in Figure 3. It shows a 63Cu ionemerging from the quadrupole and beingconverted to an electrical pulse by the de-tector. As the rf-dc voltage of the quadru-pole — corresponding to 63Cu — is re-peatedly scanned, the ions as electricalpulses are stored and counted by a multi-channel analyzer. This multichannel data-acquisition system typically has 20 chan-nels per mass, and as the electrical pulsesare counted in each channel, a profile ofthe mass is built up over the 20 channels,

corresponding to the spectral peak of63Cu. In a multielement run, repeatedscans are made over the entire suite ofanalyte masses, as opposed to just onemass represented in this example.

Quadrupole scan rates are typically onthe order of 2500 atomic mass units(amu) per second and can cover the en-tire mass range of 0–300 amu in about0.1 s. However, real-world analysis speedsare much slower than this, and in practice25 elements can be determined in dupli-cate with good precision in 1–2 min.

QUADRUPOLE PERFORMANCE CRITERIATwo very important performance specifi-cations of a mass analyzer govern its abil-ity to separate an analyte peak from aspectral interference. The first is resolv-

S P E C T R O S C O P Y T U T O R I A L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

+

+

+

+

++

+Quadrupole rods

-

+

Ionflow

Figure 2. Schematic showing principles of a quadrupole mass filter.

Quadrupole

Quadrupolemass scancontrollerMultichannel data

acquisition system

Ch l

Ions (electricalpulses)

Mass scan (amu)

63

1n

Detector

63Cu

63Cu scan

Copper ion — m/z 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ............ 20

Figure 3. Profiles of different masses are built up using a multichannel data acquisition system.Circle 33


ing power (R), which in traditional massspectrometry is represented by the fol-lowing equation: R 5 m/Dm, where m isthe nominal mass at which the peak oc-curs and Dm is the mass difference be-tween two resolved peaks (2). However,for quadrupole technology, the term reso-lution is more commonly used, and isnormally defined as the width of a peak at10% of its height. The second specifica-tion is abundance sensitivity, which is the

signal contribution of the tail of an adja-cent peak at one mass lower and onemass higher than the analyte peak (3).Even though they are somewhat relatedand both define the quality of a quadru-pole, the abundance sensitivity is proba-bly the most critical. If a quadrupole hasgood resolution but poor abundance sen-sitivity, it will often prohibit the measure-ment of an ultratrace analyte peak next toa major interfering mass.

RESOLUTIONLet us now discuss this area in greater de-tail. The ability to separate differentmasses with a quadrupole is determinedby a combination of factors includingshape, diameter, and length of the rods, fre-quency of quadrupole power supply, oper-ating vacuum, applied rf-dc voltages, andthe motion and kinetic energy of the ionsentering and exiting the quadrupole. Allthese factors will have a direct impact onthe stability of the ions as they travel downthe middle of the rods and thus thequadrupole’s ability to separate ions of dif-fering mass-to-charge ratios. This is repre-sented in Figure 4, which shows a simpli-fied version of the Mathieu mass stabilityplot of two separate masses (A and B) en-tering the quadrupole at the same time (4).

Any of the rf-dc conditions shown un-der the light blue plot will allow onlymass A to pass through the quadrupole,while any combination of rf-dc voltagesunder the yellow plot will allow only massB to pass through the quadrupole. If theslope of the rf-dc scan rate is steep, repre-sented by the light blue line (high resolu-tion), the spectral peaks will be narrow,and masses A and B will be well sepa-rated (equivalent to the distance betweenthe two blue arrows). However, if theslope of the scan is shallow, representedby the red line ( low resolution), the spec-tral peaks will be wide, and masses A andB will not be so well separated (equiva-lent to the distance between the two redarrows). On the other hand, if the slopeof the scan is too shallow, represented bythe gray line (inadequate resolution), thepeaks will overlap each other (shown bythe green area of the plot) and themasses will pass through the quadrupolewithout being separated. In theory, theresolution of a quadrupole mass filter canbe varied between 0.3 and 3.0 amu. How-

S P E C T R O S C O P Y T U T O R I A L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F(rf)

F(dc

)

High resolutionA

BLow

resolution

Inadequateresolution

Overlap

Figure 4. Simplified Mathieu stability dia-gram of a quadrupole mass filter, showingseparation of two different masses, A (lightblue plot) and B (yellow plot).

Resolution

Inte

nsity

High resolution(0.3 amu)

Normal resolution (1.0 amu)

Low resolution (3.0 amu)

Figure 5. Sensitivity comparison of aquadrupole operated at 3.0, 1.0, and 0.3amu resolution (measured at 10% of itspeak height).

Resolution 0.70 amuResolution 0.50 amu

30,000

20,000

10,000

062 63 64 65 66

Mass

Puls

e in

tens

ity

Figure 6. Sensitivity comparison of two cop-per isotopes, 63Cu and 65Cu, at resolutionsettings of 0.70 and 0.50 amu.

Circle 34

OCTOBER 2001 16(10) SPECTROSCOPY 47

ever, improved resolution is always ac-companied by a sacrifice in sensitivity, asseen in Figure 5, which shows a compari-son of the same mass at a resolution of3.0, 1.0, and 0.3 amu.

We can see that the peak height at 3.0amu is much larger than the peak heightat 0.3 amu but, as expected, it is alsomuch wider. This would prohibit using aresolution of 3.0 amu with spectrally com-plex samples. Conversely, the peak widthat 0.3 amu is very narrow, but the sensi-tivity is low. For this reason, a compro-mise between peak width and sensitivityusually has to be reached, depending onthe application. This can clearly be seenin Figure 6, which shows a spectral over-lay of two copper isotopes — 63Cu and65Cu — at resolution settings of 0.70 and0.50 amu. In practice, the quadrupole isnormally operated at a resolution of0.7–1.0 amu for most applications.

It is worth mentioning that mostquadrupoles are operated in the first sta-bility region, where resolving power istypically ;400. If the quadrupole is oper-ated in the second or third stability re-gions, resolving powers of 4000 (5) and9000 (6), respectively, have beenachieved. However, improving resolutionusing this approach has resulted in a sig-nificant loss of signal. Although there areways of improving sensitivity, other prob-lems have been encountered, and as a re-sult, to date there are no commercial in-struments available based on this design.

Some instruments can vary the peakwidth on-the-fly, which means that the res-olution can be changed between 3.0 and0.3 amu for every analyte in a multiele-ment run. For some challenging applica-tions this can be beneficial, but in realitythey are rare. So, even thoughquadrupoles can be operated at higherresolution (in the first stability region),

until now the slight improvement has notbecome a practical benefit for most rou-tine applications.

ABUNDANCE SENSITIVITYWe can see in Figure 6 that the tails of

the spectral peaks drop off more rapidlyat the high mass end of the peak com-pared with the low mass end. The overallpeak shape, particularly its low mass andhigh mass tail, is determined by the abun-dance sensitivity of the quadrupole,


Mass (amu)

Inte

nsity

Quadrupole

Mass (M)

M 1 M 1

Ion exitingIon entering

Figure 7. Ions entering the quadrupole areslowed down by the filtering process andproduce peaks with a pronounced tail orshoulder at the low-mass end.

1 ppm of monoisotopic arsenic (75As)

75 75

Doubly charged 151Eu (75.5 amu)

(a) (b)

Figure 8. A low abundance sensitivity specification is critical to minimize spectral interfer-ences, as shown by (a) a spectral scan of 50 ppm of 151Eu++ at 75.5 amu and (b) an ex-panded view, which shows how the tail of the 151Eu++ elevates the spectral background of1 ppb of As at mass 75.

Circle 35


which is affected by a combination of fac-tors including design of the rods, fre-quency of the power supply, and operat-ing vacuum (7). Even though they are allimportant, probably the biggest impactson abundance sensitivity are the motionand kinetic energy of the ions as they en-ter and exit the quadrupole. If one looksat the Mathieu stability plot in Figure 3, itcan be seen that the stability boundariesof each mass are less defined (not sosharp) on the low mass side than they areon the high mass side (4). As a result, thecharacteristics of ion motion at the lowmass boundary is different from the highmass boundary and is therefore reflectedin poorer abundance sensitivity at the lowmass side compared with the high massside. In addition, the velocity (and there-fore the kinetic energy) of the ions enter-ing the quadrupole will affect the ion mo-tion and, as a result, will have a directimpact on the abundance sensitivity. Forthat reason, factors that affect the kineticenergy of the ions, like high plasma po-tential and the use of lens components toaccelerate the ion beam, will degrade theinstrument’s abundance sensitivity (8).

These are the fundamental reasonswhy the peak shape is not symmetricalwith a quadrupole and explains why thereis always a pronounced shoulder at thelow mass side of the peak compared tothe high mass side — as represented inFigure 7, which shows the theoreticalpeak shape of a nominal mass M. We cansee that the shape of the peak at onemass lower (M 2 1) is slightly differentfrom the other side of the peak at onemass higher (M 1 1) than the mass M.For this reason, the abundance sensitivityspecification for all quadrupoles is alwaysworse on the low mass side than on thehigh mass side and is typically 1 3 1026

at M 2 1 and 1 3 1027 at M 1 1. In otherwords, an interfering peak of 1 millioncounts per second (cps) at M 2 1 wouldproduce a background of 1 cps at M,while it would take an interference of 107

cps at M 1 1 to produce a background of1 cps at M.

BENEFITS OF GOOD ABUNDANCESENSITIVITYFigure 8 shows an example of the impor-tance of abundance sensitivity. Figure 8ais a spectral scan of 50 ppm of the doublycharged europium ion — 151Eu11 at 75.5amu (a doubly charged ion is one withtwo positive charges, as opposed to a nor-mal singly charged positive ion, and ex-hibits a m/z peak at half its mass). We cansee that the intensity of the peak is sogreat that its tail overlaps the adjacentmass at 75 amu, which is the only avail-able mass for the determination of ar-senic. This is highlighted in Figure 8b,which shows an expanded view of the tailof the 151Eu11, together with a scan of 1ppb of As at mass 75. We can see veryclearly that the 75As signal lies on thesloping tail of the 151Eu11 peak. Mea-surement on a sloping background likethis would result in a significant degrada-tion in the arsenic detection limit, particu-larly as the element is monoisotopic andno alternative mass is available. This ex-ample shows the importance of a lowabundance sensitivity specification inICP-MS.

DIFFERENT QUARDUPOLE DESIGNSMany different designs of quadrupole areused in ICP-MS, all made from differentmaterials with various dimensions,shapes, and physical characteristics. Inaddition, they are all maintained atslightly different vacuum chamber pres-sures and operate at different frequen-

cies. Theory tells us that hyperbolic rodsshould generate a better hyperbolic (el-liptical) field than cylindrical rods, result-ing in higher transmission of ions athigher resolution. It also tells us that ahigher operating frequency means ahigher rate of oscillation — and thereforeseparation — of the ions as they traveldown the quadrupole. Finally, it is verywell accepted that a higher vacuum pro-duces fewer collisions between gas mole-cules and ions, resulting in a narrowerspread in kinetic energy of the ions andtherefore less of a tail at the low massside of a peak. However, given all thesespecification differences, in practice theperformance of most modern quadrupoleICP-MS instrumentation is very similar.

So even though these differences willmainly be transparent to users, there aresome subtle variations in each instru-ment’s measurement protocol and thesoftware’s approach to peak quantitation.This is a very important area that we willdiscuss it in greater detail in a future col-umn. The next part of the series will con-tinue with describing the fundamentalprinciples of other types of mass analyz-ers used in ICP-MS.

REFERENCES(1) R. Thomas, Spectroscopy 16(9), 38–44

(2001).(2) F. Adams, R. Gijbels, and R. Van Grieken,

Inorganic Mass Spectrometry (John Wileyand Sons, New York, 1988).

(3) A. Montasser, Ed. Inductively CoupledPlasma Mass Spectrometry (Wiley-VCH,Berlin, 1998).

(4) P.H. Dawson, Ed., Quadrupole Mass Spec-trometry and its Applications (Elsevier,Amsterdam, 1976; reissued by AIP Press,Woodbury, NY, 1995).

(5) Z. Du, T.N. Olney, and D.J. Douglas, J.Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 8, 1230–1236(1997).

(6) P.H. Dawson and Y. Binqi, Int. J. MassSpectrom., Ion Proc. 56, 25 (1984).

(7) D. Potter, Agilent Technologies ApplicationNote, 228–349 (January, 1996).

(8) E.R. Denoyer, D. Jacques, E. Debrah, andS.D. Tanner, At. Spectrosc. 16(1), 1(1995).

Robert Thomas has more than 30 years ex-perience in trace element analysis. He is theprincipal of his own freelance writing andscientific consulting company, Scientific So-lutions, based in Gaithersburg, MD. He canbe contacted by e-mail at [email protected] or via his web site atwww.scientificsolutions1.com.◆

S P E C T R O S C O P Y T U T O R I A L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Circle 36

2 SPECTROSCOPY 14(1) JANUARY 1999 www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com

Although quadrupole mass analyzers repre-sent more than 90% of all inductively cou-pled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)systems installed worldwide, limitations intheir resolving power has led to the develop-ment of high resolution spectrometers basedon the double-focusing magnetic-sector de-sign. Part VII of this series on ICP-MStakes a detailed look at this very powerfulmass separation device, which has foundits niche in solving challenging applicationproblems that require excellent detectioncapability, exceptional resolving power, andvery high precision.

As discussed in Part VI of this series(1), a quadrupole-based ICP-MSsystem typically offers a resolutionof 0.7–1.0 amu. This is quite ade-quate for most routine applications,

but has proved to be inadequate for manyelements that are prone to argon-, sol-vent-, or sample-based spectral interfer-ences. These limitations in quadrupolesdrove researchers in the direction of tra-ditional high resolution, magnetic-sectortechnology to improve quantitation by re-solving the analyte mass away from thespectral interference (2). These ICP-MSinstruments, which were first commer-cialized in the late 1980s, offered resolv-ing power as high as 10,000, comparedwith a quadrupole, which was approxi-mately 300. This dramatic improvementin resolving power allowed difficult ele-ments like Fe, K, As, V, and Cr to be de-termined with relative ease, even in com-plex sample matrices.

TRADITIONAL MAGNETIC-SECTORINSTRUMENTSThe magnetic-sector design was firstused in molecular spectroscopy for the

structural analysis of complex organiccompounds. Unfortunately, it was initiallyfound to be unsuitable as a separation de-vice for an ICP system because it re-quired a few thousand volts of potential atthe plasma interface area to acceleratethe ions into the mass analyzer. For thisreason, basic changes had to be made tothe ion acceleration mechanism to opti-mize it as an ICP-MS separation device.This was a significant challenge whenmagnetic-sector systems were first devel-oped in late 1980s. However, by the early1990s, instrument designers solved thisproblem by moving the high-voltage com-ponents away from the plasma and inter-face and closer to the mass spectrometer.Today’s instrumentation is based on twodifferent approaches, commonly referredto as standard or reverse Nier-Johnson

geometry. Both these designs, which usethe same basic principles, consist of twoanalyzers — a traditional electromagnetand an electrostatic analyzer (ESA). Inthe standard (sometimes called forward)design, the ESA is positioned before themagnet, and in the reverse design it is po-sitioned after the magnet. A schematic ofa reverse Nier-Johnson spectrometer isshown in Figure 1.

PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION With this approach, ions are sampledfrom the plasma in a conventional man-ner and then accelerated in the ion opticregion to a few kilovolts before they enterthe mass analyzer. The magnetic field,which is dispersive with respect to ion en-


Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart VII: Mass Separation Devices — Double-Focusing Magnetic-Sector Technology


Electrostaticanalyzer

Electromagnet

Detector

Plasma torch

Entranceslit

Exit slit

Accelerationoptics

Focusingoptics

Figure 1. Schematic of a reverse Nier Johnson double-focusing magnetic-sector mass spec-trometer (Courtesy of Finnigan MAT).

JANUARY 1999 14(1) SPECTROSCOPY 3

ergy and mass, then focuses all the ionswith diverging angles of motion from theentrance slit. The ESA, which is only dis-persive with respect to ion energy, thenfocuses all the ions onto the exit slit,where the detector is positioned. If theenergy dispersion of the magnet and ESAare equal in magnitude but opposite in di-rection, they will focus both ion angles(first focusing) and ion energies (secondor double focusing), when combined to-gether. Changing the electrical field inthe opposite direction during the cycletime of the magnet (in terms of the masspassing the exit slit) has the effect offreezing the mass for detection. Then assoon as a certain magnetic field strengthis passed, the electric field is set to itsoriginal value and the next mass isfrozen. The voltage is varied on a per-mass basis, allowing the operator to scanonly the mass peaks of interest ratherthan the full mass range (3, 4).

Because traditional magnetic-sectortechnology was initially developed for thestructural or qualitative identification oforganic compounds, there wasn’t a real

necessity for rapid quantitation of spectralpeaks required for trace element analysis.They functioned by scanning over a largemass range by varying the magnetic fieldover time with a fixed acceleration volt-age. During a small window in time,which was dependant on the resolutionchosen, ions of a particular mass tocharge are swept past the exit slit to pro-duce the characteristic flat top peaks. Asthe resolution of a magnetic-sector instru-ment is independent of mass, ion signals,

particularly at low mass, are far apart.The result was that a large amount oftime was spent scanning and settling themagnet. This was not such a major prob-lem for qualitative analysis, but proved tobe impractical for routine trace elementanalysis. This concept is shown in greaterdetail in Figure 2, which is a plot of fourparameters — magnetic field strength,accelerating voltage, mass, and signal in-tensity — against time for four separatemasses (M1–M4). Scanning the magnetfrom point A to point B, (acceleratingvoltage is fixed) results in a scan acrossthe mass range, generating spectralpeaks for the four different masses. It canbe seen that this increased scanning andsettling overhead time (often referred toas dead time) would result in valuablemeasurement time being lost, particu-larly for high sample throughput that re-quired ultratrace detection levels.

By changing the electric field in the op-posite direction to the field strength ofthe magnet during the cycle time of themagnet, it has the effect of “stopping” themass that passes through the analyzer.Then, as soon as the magnetic fieldstrength is passed, the electrical field is

set to its original value and the next mass“stopped” in the same manner. The accel-erating voltage, as well as its rate ofchange, has to be varied depending onthe mass, but the benefit of this methodis that only the mass peaks of interest areregistered. This process is seen in Figure3, which shows the same four massesscanned. The only difference this time isthat as well as scanning the magnet frompoint A to point B, the accelerating volt-age is also changed, resulting in a step-wise jump from one mass to the next.This means that the full mass range iscovered much faster than scanning themagnet alone, because of the speed in-volved in electrically jumping from onemass to another (5). Once the magnethas been scanned to a particular point, anelectric scan is used to cover an area of 610–30 % of the mass, either to measurethe analyte peak or monitor other massesof interest. Peak quantitation is typicallyperformed by taking multiple data pointsover a fixed mass window and integratingover a fixed period of time.

It should be pointed out that althoughthis approach represents enormous timesavings over older, single-focusing mag-netic-sector technology, it is still signifi-


A

Measurement timeScanning and

settling (dead) time

B

M1

M4

M2 M3

Inte

nsity

Time

Mas

sAc

cele

ratio

n po

tent

ial

Mag

netic

fiel

d

Figure 2. A plot of magnetic field strength,accelerating voltage (fixed), mass and sig-nal intensity over time for four separatemasses (M1–M4). Note that only the mag-net is scanned, while the accelerating volt-age is fixed — resulting in long scan timesbetween the masses.

A

Measurement time

Jump time

B

M1M4

M2M3

Inte

nsity

Time

Mas

sAc

cele

ratio

n po

tent

ial

Mag

netic

fiel

d

Figure 3. A plot of magnetic field strength,accelerating voltage (changed), mass andsignal intensity over time for the same fourmasses (M1–M4). This time, in addition tothe magnet being scanned, the acceleratingvoltage is also changed, resulting in rapidelectric jumps between the masses.

By changing the

electric field in the

opposite direction to the

field strength of the

magnet during the cycle

time of the magnet, it

has the effect of

“stopping” the mass that

passes through the

analyzer.

cantly slower than quadrupole-based in-struments. The inherent problem lies inthe fact that a quadrupole can be elec-tronically scanned much faster than amagnet. Typical speeds for a full massscan (0–250 amu) of a magnet are in theorder of 400–500 ms compared with 100ms for a quadrupole. In addition, it takesmuch longer for magnets to slow downand settle to take measurements – typi-cally 20 ms compared to 1–2 ms for aquadrupole. So, even though in practice,the electric scan dramatically reduces theoverall analysis time, modern double-fo-cusing magnetic-sector ICP-MS systems,especially when multiple resolution set-tings are used, require 5–10 times asmuch time as quadrupole instruments.This makes them less than ideal for rou-tine, high-throughput applications or for

samples that require multielement deter-minations on rapid transient signals.

RESOLVING POWERAs mentioned previously, most commer-cial magnetic-sector ICP-MS systems of-fer as much as 10,000 resolving power(5% peak height/10% valley definition),which is high enough to resolve the ma-jority of spectral interferences. It’s worthemphasizing that resolving power (R), isrepresented by the equation: R 5 m/Dm,where m is the nominal mass at whichthe peak occurs and Dm is the mass dif-ference between two resolved peaks (6).In a quadrupole, the resolution is se-lected by changing the ratio of the rf/dcvoltages on the quadrupole rods. How-ever, because a double-focusing mag-netic-sector instrument involves focusing

ion angles and ionenergies, massresolution isachieved by usingtwo mechanicalslits — one at theentrance to themass spectrome-ter and another atthe exit, beforethe detector. Vary-ing resolution isachieved by scan-ning the magneticfield under differ-ent entrance- andexit-slit width con-ditions. Similar to

optical systems, low resolution isachieved by using wide slits, whereashigh resolution is achieved with narrowslits. Varying the width of both the en-trance and exit slits effectively changesthe operating resolution. This can beseen in Figure 4, which shows two slitwidth scenarios. Figure 4a shows amedium entrance slit and a wide exit slitproducing relatively low resolution and acharacteristic flat-topped peak. Figure 4bhas the same size entrance slit, but a nar-rower exit slit, producing higher resolu-tion with a characteristic triangular peak.The lowest practical resolution achiev-able with a double-focusing magnetic-sec-tor instrument, using the widest entranceand exit slits, is approximately 300–400,whereas the highest practical resolution,using the narrowest entrance and exitslits, is approximately 10,000. Most com-mercial systems operate at fixed resolu-tion settings — for example, low is typi-cally 300–400; medium is typically3000–4000, and high is typically8000–10,000 (the choice of settings willvary depending on the instrumentation).

However, it should be emphasized that,similar to optical spectrometry, as theresolution is increased, the transmissiondecreases. So even though extremelyhigh resolution is available, detection lim-its will be compromised under these con-ditions. This can be seen in Figure 5,which shows a plot of resolution againstion transmission. Figure 5 shows that aresolving power of 400 produces 100%transmission, but at a resolving power of


Ion beam

Entrance slit Analyzer Exit slit

Wide slit Lower resolution

Higher resolution

Detector

Inte

nsity

(a)

(b)

Ion beam

Entrance slit Analyzer Exit slit

Narrow slit

Detector

Inte

nsity

Figure 4. Resolution obtained using (a) wide and (b) narrow exit slit widths as the magnetic field is scanned. The entrance slit widths are thesame in (a) and (b).

Table I. Resolution required to resolve some common polyatomic interferences from a selected group of isotopes.

Isotope Matrix Interference Resolution Transmission

39K H2O 38ArH 5570 6%40Ca H2O 40Ar 199800 0%44Ca HNO3

14N14N 16O 970 80%56Fe H2O 40Ar16O 2504 18%31P H2O 15N16O 1460 53%34S H2O 16O18O 1300 65%75As HCl 40Ar35Cl 7725 2%51V HCl 35Cl16O 2572 18%64Zn H2SO4

32S16O16O 1950 42%24Mg Organics 12C12C 1600 50%52Cr Organics 40Ar12C 2370 20%55Mn HNO3

40Ar15N 2300 20%

www.spec t roscopyo n l i n e . com4 SPECTROSCOPY 14(1) JANUARY 1999


10,000, only ;2% is achievable. This dra-

matic loss in sensitivity could be an issueif low detection limits are required inspectrally complex samples that requirethe highest possible resolution; however,spectral demands of this nature are notvery common. Table I shows the resolu-tion required to resolve fairly commonpolyatomic interferences from a selectedgroup of elemental isotopes, togetherwith the achievable ion transmission.

Figure 5 is a comparison between aquadrupole instrument and a magnetic-sector instrument with one of the mostcommon polyatomic interferences —40Ar16O on 56Fe, which requires a resolu-tion of 2504 to separate the peaks. Figure5a shows a spectral scan of 56Fe using a

quadrupole instrument. What it doesn’tshow is the massive polyatomic interfer-ence 40Ar16O (produced by oxygen ionsfrom the water combining with argonions from the plasma) completely over-lapping the 56Fe. It shows very clearlythat these two masses are unresolvablewith a quadrupole. If that same spectralscan is performed on a magnetic-sectorinstrument, the result is the scan shownin Figure 5b. To see the spectral scan onthe same scale, it was necessary to exam-ine a much smaller range. For this rea-son, a 0.100-amu window was taken, as in-dicated by the dotted lines.

OTHER BENEFITSBesides high resolving power, another at-tractive feature of magnetic-sector instru-ments is its very high sensitivity com-bined with extremely low backgroundlevels. High ion transmission in low-resolution mode translates into sensitivityspecifications of typically 100–200 millioncounts per second (mcps) per ppm, whilebackground levels resulting from ex-tremely low dark current noise are typi-cally 0.1–0.2 cps. This compares with sen-sitivity of 10–50 mcps and backgroundlevels of ;10 cps for a quadrupole instru-ment. For this reason detection limits, es-pecially for high mass elements like ura-nium where high resolution is generallynot required, are typically an order ofmagnitude better than those provided bya quadrupole-based instrument.

Besides good detection capability, an-other of the recognized benefits of themagnetic-sector approach is its ability toquantitate with excellent precision. Mea-surement of the characteristically flat-topped spectral peaks translates directlyinto high precision data. As a result, inthe low-resolution mode, relative stan-dard deviation (RSD) values of0.01–0.05% are fairly common, whichmakes magnetic-sector instruments anideal tool for carrying out high precisionisotope ratio work (7). Although preci-sion is usually degraded as resolution isincreased (because the peak shape getsworse), modern instrumentation withhigh speed electronics and low mass biasis still capable of precision values of,0.1% RSD in medium- or high resolutionmode. (8).

The demand for ultrahigh-precisiondata, particularly in the field of geochem-istry, has led to the development of in-struments dedicated to isotope ratio


100

80

60

40

20

0400 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000

Resolution

Tran

smis

sion

(%)

Figure 5. Ion transmission with a magnetic-sector instrument decreases as the resolu-tion increases.

55 56 57

0.100 amu scan

56Fe 40Ar 16O

56Fe

(a)

m/z

Inte

nsity

55.935 55.957

40Ar 16O

(b)

m/z

Inte

nsity

Figure 6. Comparison of resolution between (a) a quadrupole and (b) a magnetic-sector in-strument for the polyatomic interference of 40Ar16O on 56Fe.

6 SPECTROSCOPY 14(1) JANUARY 1999

analysis. These are based on the double-focusing magnetic-sector design, but in-stead of using just one detector, these in-struments use multiple detectors. Oftenreferred to as multicollector systems,they offer the capability of detecting andmeasuring multiple ion signals at exactlythe same time. As a result of this simulta-neous measurement approach, they arerecognized as producing the ultimate inisotope ratio precision (9).

There is no question that double-focus-ing magnetic-sector ICP-MS systems areno longer a novel analytical technique.They have proved themselves to be avaluable addition to the trace elementtoolkit, particularly for challenging appli-cations that require good detection capa-bility, exceptional resolving power, andvery high precision. They do have theirlimitations, however, and perhaps shouldnot be considered a competitor forquadrupole instruments when it comes torapid, high-sample-throughput applica-tions or when performing multielementdeterminations on fast transient peaks,using sampling accessories such as elec-trothermal vaporization (10) or laser ab-lation (11).

REFERENCES(1) R. Thomas, Spectroscopy 16(10), 44–48

(2001).(2) N. Bradshaw, E.F.H. Hall, and N.E.

Sanderson, Journal of Analytical AtomicSpectrometry 4, 801–803 (1989).

(3) R. Hutton, A. Walsh, D. Milton, and J.Cantle, ChemSA 17, 213–215 (1991).

(4) U. Geismann and U. Greb, Fresnius’ Jour-nal of Analytical Chemistry 350, 186–193(1994).

(5) U. Geismann and U. Greb, Poster Presen-tation at Second Regensburg Symposiumon Elemental Mass Spectrometry, (1993).

(6) F. Adams, R. Gijbels, and R. Van Grieken,Inorganic Mass Spectrometry (John Wileyand Sons, New York, 1988).

(7) F. Vanhaecke, L. Moens, R. Dams, and R.Taylor, Analytical Chemistry 68, 567(1996).

(8) M. Hamester, D. Wiederin, J. Willis, W.Keri, and C.B. Douthitt, Fresnius’ Journalof Analytical Chemistry 364, 495–497(1999).

(9) J. Walder, P. A. Freeman, Journal of Ana-lytical Atomic Spectrometry 7, 571 (1992).

(10) S. Beres, E. Denoyer, R. Thomas, and P.Bruckner, Spectroscopy 9(1), 20–26(1994).

(11) S. Shuttleworth and D. Kremser, Journalof Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 13,697–699 (1998).


1/3 Page Square Ad Goes Here

Page 6

1/3 Page Square Ad Goes Here

Page 6

Circle XXX

Circle XXX

36 SPECTROSCOPY 17(1) JANUARY 2002 www.spec t roscopyon l i ne . com

Continuing with the discussion onmass analyzers used in inductivelycoupled plasma–mass spectrometry(ICP-MS), let’s now turn our atten-tion to the most recent mass separa-

tion device to be commercialized — time-of-flight (TOF) technology. Although thefirst TOF mass spectrometer was first de-scribed in the literature in the late 1940s(1), it has taken more than 50 years toadapt it for use in an ICP-MS system. Therecent growth in TOF ICP-MS sales is inresponse to the technology’s unique abil-ity to sample all ions generated in theplasma at exactly the same time, which isadvantageous in three major areas:• Multielement determinations of rapid

transient signals generated by sam-pling accessories such as laser ablationand electrothermal vaporizationdevices

• High-precision, ratioing techniquessuch as internal standardization andisotope ratio analysis

• Rapid multielement measurements,especially where sample volume islimited. TOF’s simultaneous nature of sampling

ions offers distinct advantages over tradi-tional scanning (sequential) quadrupoletechnology for ICP-MS applicationswhere large amounts of data need to becaptured in a short amount of time. Be-fore we go on to discuss this in greaterdetail, let’s go through the basic princi-ples of TOF analyzers.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF TOFAll TOF-MS instruments are based onthe same fundamental principle that thekinetic energy (Ek) of an ion is directlyproportional to its mass (m) and velocity(v), represented by equation 1

Ek � 1⁄2mv2 [1]

Therefore, if a population of ions — allhaving different masses — are given thesame kinetic energy by an acceleratingvoltage (U ), the velocities of the ions willall be different, based on their masses.This principle is then used to separateions of different mass-to-charge ratios(m/z) in the time (t) domain, over a fixedflight path distance (D) — represented byequation 2

m/z = 2Ut2/D2 [2]

This is shown schematically in Figure1, with three ions of different mass-to-charge ratios being accelerated into aflight tube and arriving at the detector atdifferent times. It can be seen that, basedon their velocities, the lightest ion arrivesfirst, followed by the medium mass ion,and finally the heaviest one. Using flighttubes of 1 m in length, even the heaviestions typically take less than 50 �s toreach the detector. This translates intoapproximately 20,000 mass spectra/s —approximately 2–3 orders of magnitudefaster than the sequential scanning modeof a quadrupole system.

DIFFERENT SAMPLING APPROACHESEven though this process sounds fairlystraightforward, sampling the ions in asimultaneous manner from a continuoussource of ions being generated in theplasma discharge is not a trivial task. Ba-sically two sampling approaches are usedin commercial TOF mass analyzers. Theyare the orthogonal design (2), where theflight tube is positioned at right angles tothe sampled ion beam, and the axial de-sign (3), where the flight tube is in thesame axis as the ion beam. In both de-signs, all ions that contribute to the massspectrum are sampled through the inter-face cones, but instead of being focused

into the mass filter in the conventionalway, packets (groups) of ions are electro-statically injected into the flight tube atexactly the same time. With the orthogo-nal approach, an accelerating potential isapplied at right angles to the continuousion beam from the plasma source. Theion beam is then chopped by using apulsed voltage supply coupled to the or-thogonal accelerator to provide repetitivevoltage slices at a frequency of a few kilo-hertz. The sliced packets of ions, whichare typically long and thin in cross sec-tion (in the vertical plane), are then al-lowed to drift into the flight tube wherethe ions are temporally resolved accord-ing to their velocities. Figure 2 shows thisprocess schematically.

With the axial approach, an accelerat-ing potential is applied axially (in thesame axis) to the incoming ion beam as itenters the extraction region. Because theions are in the same plane as the detec-tor, the beam has to be modulated usingan electrode grid to repel the gatedpacket of ions into the flight tube. Thiskind of modulation generates an ionpacket that is long and thin in cross sec-tion (in the horizontal plane). The differ-


A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart VIII — Mass Analyzers: Time-of-Flight Technology


Acceleratingvoltage

Flighttube

Flight path distance

Detector

Figure 1. Principles of ion detection usingTOF technology, showing separation ofthree masses in the time domain.


ent masses are then resolved in the timedomain in a similar manner to the orthog-onal design. The layout of an on-axisTOF system is shown schematically inFigure 3.

Figures 2 and 3 represent a rather sim-plistic explanation of TOF principles ofoperation. In practice, the many complexion focusing components in a TOF massanalyzer ensure that a maximum numberof analyte ions reach the detector andalso that undesired photons, neutralspecies, and interferences are ejectedfrom the ion beam. Some of these compo-nents are shown in Figure 4, whichshows a more detailed view of a typicalorthogonal system. This design showsthat an injector plate is used to injectpackets of ions at right angles from theion beam emerging from the MS inter-face. These packets of ions are then di-rected toward a deflection–steering platewhere pulsed voltages steer the ions (orthrow out unwanted species) in the direc-tion of a reflectron. The packets of ionsare then deflected back 180º, where theyare detected by a channel electron multi-plier or discrete dynode detector. Thereflectron is a type of ion mirror and func-tions as an energy compensation device,so that different ions of the same mass ar-rive at the detector at the same time.Even though the on-axis design mightuse slightly different components, theprinciples are very similar.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHOGONALAND ON-AXIS TOF TECHNOLOGYAlthough there are real benefits of usingTOF over quadrupole technology forsome ICP-MS applications, each type ofTOF design also has subtle differences inits capabilities. (However, it is not the in-tent of this tutorial to make any personaljudgement about the benefits or disad-vantages of either design.) Let’s take alook at some of these differences ingreater detail (4, 5).

Sensitivity. The axial approach tends toproduce higher ion transmission becausethe steering components are in the sameplane as the ion generation system(plasma) and the detector. This meansthat the direction and magnitude of great-est energy dispersion is along the axis ofthe flight tube. In addition, when ions areextracted orthogonally, the energy dis-persion can produce angular divergenceof the ion beam resulting in poor trans-mission efficiency. However, the sensitiv-ity of either TOF design is still generally

lower than the latest commercial quadru-pole instruments.

Background levels. The on-axis designtends to generate higher background lev-els because neutral species and photonsstand a greater chance of reaching thedetector. This results in background lev-els in the order of 20–50 counts/s — approximately 5–10 times higher than theorthogonal design. However, because theion beam in the axial design has a smallercross section, a smaller detector can beused, which generally has better noisecharacteristics. In comparison, most com-mercial quadrupole instruments offerbackground levels of 1–10 counts/s,depending on the design.

Duty cycle. Duty cycle is usually definedas the fraction (percentage) of extractedions that actually make it into the massanalyzer. Unfortunately, with a TOF ICP-MS system that has to use pulsed ionpackets from a continuous source of ionsgenerated in the plasma, this process isnot very efficient. It should be empha-sized that even though the ions are sam-pled at the same time, detection is not si-multaneous because different massesarrive at the detector at different times.The difference between the samplingmechanisms of orthogonal and axial TOFdesigns translates into subtle differencesin their duty cycles.


Orthogonalaccelerator Flight tube DetectorIon

packets

Ion beam

Plasma torch

Figure 2. Schematic of an orthogonal acceleration TOF analyzer.

Flight tube Detector

Ionpacket

Ion beammodulation

Ion beam

Plasma torch

Figure 3. Schematic of an on-axis acceleration TOF analyzer.


With the orthogonal design, duty cycleis defined by the width of the extractedion packets, which are typically long andthin in cross section, as shown in Figure2. In comparison, the duty cycle of the ax-ial design is defined by the length of theextracted ion packets, which are typicallywide and thin in cross section, as shownin Figure 3. Duty cycle can be improvedby changing the cross-sectional area ofthe ion packet but, depending on the de-sign, is generally improved at the ex-pense of resolution. In practice, the duty

cycles for both orthogonal and axial de-signs are in the order of 15–20%.

Resolution. The resolution of theorthogonal approach is slightly betterbecause of its two-stage extraction/acceleration mechanism. Because a pulseof voltage pushes the ions from the ex-traction area into the acceleration region,the major energy dispersion lies alongthe axis of ion generation. For this rea-son, the energy spread is relatively smallin the direction of extraction compared tothe axial approach, resulting in better res-

olution. However, the resolving power ofboth commercial TOF ICP-MS systems istypically in the order of 500–2000 (4), de-pending on the mass region, whichmakes them inadequate to resolve manyof the problematic polyatomic species en-countered in ICP-MS (6). In comparison,commercial high-resolution systemsbased on the double-focusing magnetic-sector design offer resolving power ashigh as 10,000, while commercialquadrupoles typically achieve 300–400.

Mass bias. This is the degree to whichion transport efficiency varies with mass.All instruments show some degree ofmass bias, which is usually compensatedfor by measuring the difference betweenthe theoretical and observed ratio of twoisotopes of the same element. In TOF, thevelocity (energy) of the initial ion beamwill affect the instrument’s mass biascharacteristics. In theory, mass biasshould be less with the axial design be-cause the extracted ion packets don’thave any velocity in a direction perpen-dicular to the axis of the flight tube,which could potentially impact theirtransport efficiency.

BENEFITS OF TOF TECHNOLOGYFOR ICP-MSIt should be emphasized that these per-formance differences between the twodesigns are subtle and should not detractfrom the overall benefits of the TOF ap-proach for ICP-MS. As mentioned earlier,a scanning device such as a quadrupolecan only detect one mass at a time, whichmeans that a compromise always existsbetween number of elements, detectionlimits, precision, and the overall measure-ment time. However, with the TOF ap-proach, the ions are sampled at exactlythe same moment in time, which meansthat multielement data can be collectedwith no significant deterioration in qual-ity. The ability of a TOF system to capturea full mass spectrum, significantly fasterthan a quadrupole, translates into threemajor benefits.

RAPID TRANSIENT PEAK ANALYSISProbably the most exciting potential forTOF ICP-MS is in the multielement analy-sis of a rapid transient signal generatedby sampling accessories such as laser ab-lation (7), electrothermal vaporization,and flow injection systems (4). Eventhough a scanning quadrupole can beused for this type of analysis, it struggles


Deflection–steering plate

Reflectron

Interface

Detector

Injectorplate

Figure 4. A more detailed view of a typical orthogonal TOF analyzer, showing some of the ionsteering components.

2500

2000

1500

1000

500 3.251.75

0.25020 29 43 50 76 138 181 207

Mass (amu)

Cou

nts

Tim

e (s

)

Figure 5. A full mass scan of a transient signal generated by 10 �L of a 5-ppb multielementsolution using an electrothermal vaporization sampling accessory coupled to a TOF ICP-MSsystem (courtesy of GBC Scientific Equipment [Arlington Heights, IL]).


to produce high-quality, multielementdata when the transient peak lasts only afew seconds. The simultaneous nature ofTOF instrumentation makes it ideallysuited for this type of analysis, becausethe entire mass range can be collected in

less than 50 �s. Figure 5 shows a fullmass scan of a transient peak generatedby an electrothermal vaporization sam-pling accessory coupled to a TOF ICP-MS system. The technique has generateda healthy signal for 10 �L of a 5-ppb

multielement solution in less than 10 s.TOF technology is probably better suitedthan any other design of ICP-MS for thistype of application.

IMPROVED PRECISIONTo better understand how TOF technol-ogy can help improve precision in ICP-MS, it is important to know the majorsources of instability. The most commonsource of noise in ICP-MS is flicker noiseassociated with the sample introductionprocess (from peristaltic pump pulsa-tions, nebulization mechanisms, andplasma fluctuations) and shot noise de-rived from photons, electrons, and ionshitting the detector. Shot noise is basedon counting statistics and is directly pro-portional to the square root of the signal.It therefore follows that as the signal in-tensity gets larger, the shot noise has lessof an impact on the precision (% RSD) ofthe signal. At high ion counts the mostdominant source of imprecision in ICP-MS is derived from flicker noise gener-ated in the sample introduction area.

One of the most effective ways to re-duce instability produced by flicker noiseis to use a technique called internal stan-dardization, where the analyte signal iscompared and ratioed to the signal of aninternal standard element (usually of sim-ilar mass and ionization characteristics)that is spiked into the sample. Eventhough a quadrupole-based system cando an adequate job of compensating forthese signal fluctuations, it is ultimatelylimited by its inability to measure the in-ternal standard at exactly the same timeas the analyte isotope. So to compensate


In reference to Part VII of my tutorial series, “A Beginner’sGuide to ICP-MS,” which was published in the November

2001 issue of Spectroscopy, I would like to make a numberof corrections. Even though the intent of the article was togive a general overview of double-focusing magnetic-sectormass analyzers for beginners, Thermo Finnigan contactedSpectroscopy to inform the editors and me that the columncontained errors, and that it did not reflect the current per-formance of their instrument, the ELEMENT2. For that rea-son, I wish to make the following amendments to the article.

• My statement that double-focusing magnetic sectorICP-MS instruments are signif icantly slower than quadrupole technology does not hold true today. Recent improvements in the scan rate of the ELEMENT2 translatesinto speeds approaching that of quadrupole-based instruments.

• My statement that typical scan speeds for a full massscan were 400–500 ms is reflective of older magnetic sec-tor technology. This is not representative of the ELEMENT2,which has a scan speed in the order of 150–200 ms.

• My statement that typical sensitivity was in the order of100–200 mil l ion cps/ppm is not reflective of the ELEMENT2, which has a specification for 115In of 1 billioncps/ppm.

• My conclusion should therefore be modified to say thatif transient peak analysis is a requirement, modern double-focusing magnetic sector technology such as the ELEMENT2, with its improved scan speeds, should be con-sidered a viable option to quadrupole technology.

I wish to apologize for any inconvenience caused bythese statements.Robert Thomas

Correction

Circle 33


for sample introduction– and plasma-based noise and achieve high precision,the analyte and internal standard isotopesneed to be sampled and measured simul-taneously. For this reason, the design of aTOF mass analyzer is perfect for truesimultaneous internal standardization re-quired for high-precision work. It follows,therefore, that TOF is also well suited forhigh-precision isotope ratio analysiswhere its simultaneous nature of mea-surement is capable of achieving preci-sion values close to the theoretical limitsof counting statistics. And unlike a scan-ning quadrupole-based system, it canmeasure ratios for as many isotopes orisotopic pairs as needed — all with excel-lent precision (8).

ANALYSIS TIMEAs with a scanning ICP–optical emissionspectroscopy system, the speed of aquadrupole ICP mass spectrometer is lim-ited by its scanning rate. To determine 10elements in duplicate with good precisionand detection limits, an integration time of3 s/mass is normally required. Whenoverhead scanning and settling times areadded for each mass and each replicate,this translates to approximately 2min/sample. With a TOF system, thesame analysis would take significantlyless time because all the data are capturedsimultaneously. In fact, detection limit lev-els in a TOF instrument are typicallyachieved using a 10–30 s integration time,which translates into a 5–10-fold improve-ment in measurement time over a quadru-pole instrument. The added benefit of aTOF instrument is that the speed of analy-sis is not impacted by the number of ana-lytes being determined. It wouldn’t matterif the suite of elements in the method was10 or 70 — the measurement time wouldbe approximately the same. However, onepoint must be stressed: A large portion ofthe overall analysis time is taken up withflushing an old sample out and pumping anew sample into the sample introductionsystem. This can be as much as 2min/sample for real-world matrices. Sowhen this time is taken into account, thedifference between the sample through-put of a quadrupole system and a TOFICP-MS system is not so evident.

TOF ICP-MS, with its rapid, simultane-ous mode of measurement, excels at mul-tielement applications that generate fasttransient signals. It offers excellent preci-sion, particularly for isotope-ratioing

S P E C T R O S C O P Y T U T O R I A L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Circle 34

techniques, and also has the capability forhigh speeds of analysis. However, eventhough it has enormous potential, TOFwas only commercialized in 1998, so it isrelatively immature compared withquadrupole ICP-MS technology, which isalmost 20 years old. For that reason,there is currently only a small number ofTOF instruments carrying out high-throughput, routine applications.

REFERENCES(1) A.E. Cameron and D.F. Eggers, The Re-

view of Scientific Instruments 19(9), 605(1948).

(2) D.P. Myers, G. Li, P. Yang, and G.M.Hieftje, J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 5,1008–1016 (1994).

(3) D.P. Myers, paper presented at 12th Asilo-mar Conference on Mass Spectrometry,Pacific Grove, CA, Sept. 20–24, (1996).

(4) R.E. Sturgeon, J.W.H. Lam, and A. Saint,J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 15, 607–616,(2000).

(5) F. Vanhaecke, L. Moens, R. Dams, L.Allen, and S. Georgitis, Anal. Chem. 71,3297 (1999).

(6) N. Bradshaw, E.F. Hall, and N.E. Sander-son, J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 4, 801–803(1989).

(7) P. Mahoney, G. Li, and G.M. Hieftje, J.Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 11, 401–406(1996).

(8) K.G. Heumann, S.M. Gallus, G.Radlinger, and J. Vogl, J. Anal. At. Spec-trom. 13, 1001 (1998).

Robert Thomas has more than 30 years ofexperience in trace element analysis. He isthe principal of his own freelance writingand scientific consulting company, ScientificSolutions, based in Gaithersburg, MD. Hecan be contacted by e-mail at [email protected] or via his web site atwww.scientificsolutions1.com. �

small number ofelements are recog-nized as having poordetection limits by

inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry (ICP-MS).These elements are predomi-nantly ones that suffer frommajor spectral interferencesgenerated by ions derived fromthe plasma gas, matrix compo-nents, or the solvent–acid usedto get the sample into solution.Examples of these interferencesinclude:• 40Ar16O on the determination

of 56Fe • 38ArH on the determination

of 39K • 40Ar on the determination of

40Ca • 40Ar40Ar on the determination

of 80Se • 40Ar35Cl on the determination

of 75As • 40Ar12C on the determination

of 52Cr • 35Cl16O on the determination

of 51V.

AA The cold/cool plasma ap-proach, which uses a lower tem-perature to reduce the forma-tion of the argon-basedinterferences, is a very effectiveway to get around some of theseproblems (1); however, it issometimes difficult to optimize,it is only suitable for a few of theinterferences, it is susceptible tomore severe matrix effects, andit can be time consuming tochange back and forth betweennormal- and cool-plasma con-ditions. These limitations andthe desire to improve perform-ance led to the development ofcollision/reaction cells in thelate 1990s. Designed originallyfor organic MS to generatedaughter species to confirmidentification of the structure ofthe parent molecule (2), theywere used in ICP-MS to stop theappearance of many argon-based spectral interferences.

Basic Principles of Collision/Reaction CellsWith this approach, ions enter

the interface in the normalmanner, where they are ex-tracted under vacuum into acollision/reaction cell that is po-sitioned before the analyzerquadrupole. A collision/reactiongas such as hydrogen or heliumis then bled into the cell, whichconsists of a multipole (aquadrupole, hexapole, or octa-pole), usually operated in theradio frequency (rf)-only mode.The rf-only field does not sepa-rate the masses like a traditionalquadrupole, but instead has theeffect of focusing the ions,which then collide and reactwith molecules of the collision/reaction gas. By a number ofdifferent ion-molecule collisionand reaction mechanisms, poly-atomic interfering ions like 40Ar,40Ar16O, and 38ArH, will either beconverted to harmless noninter-fering species, or the analyte willbe converted to another ionwhich is not interfered with.This is exemplified by the reac-tion [1], which shows the use ofhydrogen gas to reduce the38ArH polyatomic interference inthe determination of 39K. Hy-drogen gas converts 38ArH to theharmless H3

� ion and atomicargon, but does not react withthe potassium. The 39K analyteions, free of the interference,then emerge from thecollision/reaction cell, wherethey are directed toward thequadrupole analyzer for normalmass separation.

www.spectroscopyonl ine.com42 Spectroscopy 17(2) February 2002

A Beginner‘s Guide to ICP-MSPart IX — Mass Analyzers: Collision/Reaction Cell TechnologyRobert Thomas

T U T O R I A LT U T O R I A L

RobertThomashas more than30 years ofexperience intrace elementanalysis. He isthe principal ofhis ownfreelance writingand consultingcompany,ScientificSolutions, basedin Gaithersburg,MD. He can becontacted by e-mail [email protected] via his website at www.scientificsolutions1.com.

The detection capability of traditional quadrupole mass analyzers forsome critical elements is severely compromised by the formation ofpolyatomic spectral interferences generated by either argon, solvent, orsample-based ionic species. Although there are ways to minimize theseinterferences — including correction equations, cool plasma technology,and matrix separation — they cannot be completely eliminated. How-ever, a new approach called collision/reaction cell technology has re-cently been developed that virtually stops the formation of many ofthese harmful species before they enter the mass analyzer. Part IX ofthis series takes a detailed look at this innovative new technique andthe exciting potential it has to offer.

February 2002 17(2) Spectroscopy 43

Tutorial

38ArH� � H2 � H3� � Ar

39K� � H2 � 39K� � H2 (no reaction) [1]

The layout of a typical collision/reaction cell instrument is shown inFigure 1.

Different Collision/Reaction ApproachesThe previous example is a very simplis-tic explanation of how a collision/reaction cell works. In practice, com-plex secondary reactions and collisionstake place, which generate many unde-sirable interfering species. If thesespecies were not eliminated or rejected,they could potentially lead to additionalspectral interferences. Basically two ap-proaches are used to reject the productsof these unwanted interactions:• Discrimination by kinetic energy • Discrimination by mass.

The major differences between thetwo approaches are in the types of mul-tipoles used and their basic mechanismfor rejection of the interferences. Let’stake a closer look at how they differ.

Discrimination by Kinetic Energy The first commercial collision cells forICP-MS were based on hexapole tech-nology (3), which was originally de-signed for the study of organic mole-cules using tandem MS. The morecollision-induced daughter species thatwere generated, the better the chance ofidentifying the structure of the parentmolecule; however, this very desirablecharacteristic for liquid chromatogra-

phy or electrospray MS studies was adisadvantage in inorganic MS, wheresecondary reaction–product ions aresomething to be avoided. There wereways to minimize this problem, butthey were still limited by the type ofcollision gas that could be used. Unfor-tunately, highly reactive gases — such asammonia and methane, which are moreefficient at interference reduction —could not be used because of the limita-tions of a non-scan-ning hexapole (in rf-only mode) toadequately control thesecondary reactions.The fundamental rea-son is that hexapolesdo not provide ade-quate mass discrimi-nation capabilities tosuppress the un-wanted secondary re-actions, which necessi-tates the need forkinetic energy dis-crimination to distin-guish the collisionproduct ions from theanalyte ions. This istypically achieved bysetting the collisioncell bias slightly lesspositive than the massfilter bias. This meansthat the collision-product ions, whichhave the same energyas the cell bias, are dis-criminated against

and rejected, while the analyte ions,which have a higher energy than the cellbias, are transmitted.

The inability to adequately controlthe secondary reactions meant that lowreactivity gases like He, H2, and Xe werethe only option. The result was thation-molecule collisional fragmentation(and not reactions) was thought to bethe dominant mechanism of interfer-ence reduction. So even though the iontransmission characteristics of a hexa-pole were considered very good (withrespect to the range of energies andmasses transmitted), background levelswere still relatively high because the in-terference rejection process was notvery efficient. For this reason, its detec-tion capability — particularly for someof the more difficult elements, like Fe,K, and Ca — offered little improvementover the cool plasma approach. Table Ishows some typical detection limits inppb achievable with a hexapole-basedcollision cell ICP-MS system (4).

Recent modifications to the hexapoledesign have significantly improved its

Analyzingquadrupole

Multipolereaction–

collision cell

Ion lenssystem

ICP-MSinterface

ICP

Detector

Gas inlet

Figure 1. Layout of a typical collision/reaction cell instrument.

Table I. Typical detection limits (in ppb) achievable with a hexapole-based collision cell ICP-MS system (4).

Elemental DetectionSensitivity Limit

Element Isotope (cps/[�g/mL]) (ppb)Be 9 6.9 � 107 0.0077Mg 24 1.3 � 108 0.028Ca 40 2.8 � 108 0.07V 51 1.7 � 108 0.0009Cr 52 2.4 � 108 0.0007Mn 55 3.4 � 108 0.0017Fe 56 3.0 � 108 0.017Co 59 2.7 � 108 0.0007Ni 60 2.1 � 108 0.016Cu 63 1.9 � 108 0.003Zn 68 1.1 � 108 0.008Sr 88 4.9 � 108 0.0003Ag 107 3.5 � 108 0.0003Cd 114 2.4 � 108 0.0004Te 128 1.3 � 108 0.009Ba 138 5.9 � 108 0.0002Tl 205 4.0 � 108 0.0002Pb 208 3.7 � 108 0.0007Bi 209 3.4 � 108 0.0005U 238 2.3 � 108 0.0001


Tutorial

collision/reaction characteristics. In ad-dition to offering good transmissioncharacteristics and kinetic energy dis-crimination, they now appear to offerbasic mass-dependent discriminationcapabilities. This means that the kineticenergy discrimination barrier can beadjusted with analytical mass, which of-fers the capability of using smallamounts of highly reactive gases. Figure2 shows an example of the reduction ofboth 40Ar12C and 37Cl16O using heliumwith a small amount of ammonia, inthe isotopic ratio determination of

52Cr/53Cr (52Cr is 83.789% and 53Cr is9.401% abundant). It can be seen thatthe 52Cr/53Cr ratio is virtually the samein the chloride and carbon matrices asit is with no matrix present when theoptimum flow of collision/reaction gasis used (5).

Another way to discriminate by ki-netic energy is to use an octapole in thecollision/reaction cell instead of a hexa-pole. The benefit of using a higherorder design is that its transmissioncharacteristics, particularly at the lowmass end, are slightly higher than lower

order multipoles. Similar in design tothe hexapole, collisional fragmentationand energy discrimination are the pre-dominant mechanisms for interferencereduction, which means that lower re-activity gases like hydrogen and heliumare preferred. By careful design of theinterface and the entrance to the cell,the collision/reaction capabilities can beimproved, by reducing the number ofsample/solvent/plasma-based ions en-tering the cell. This enables the collisiongas to be more effective at reducing theinterferences. An example of this is theuse of H2 as the cell gas to reduce theargon dimer (40Ar2

�) interference in thedetermination of the major isotope ofselenium at mass 80 (80Se). Figure 3shows an example of a dramatic reduc-tion in the 40Ar2

� background at mass 80using an ICP-MS fitted with an octa-pole reaction cell. By using the opti-mum flow of H2, the spectral back-ground is reduced by about six ordersof magnitude, from 10,000,000 cps to10 cps, producing a background equiva-lent concentration of approximately 1 ppt for 80Se (6).

Discrimination by MassThe other way to reject the products ofthe secondary reactions/collisions is todiscriminate them by mass. Unfortu-nately, higher order multipoles cannotbe used for efficient mass discrimina-tion because the stability boundariesare diffuse, and sequential secondary

14

12

10

8

6

4

20 1 2 3 4 5 6

Collision gas flow rate (mL/min)

52Cr

/53Cr

No matrix0.2% Cl matrix0.06% C matrix

Figure 2. The use of a helium/ammonia mixture with a hexapole-basedcollision cell for the successful determination of 52Cr/53Cr isotopic ratios(courtesy of Thermo Elemental, Franklin, MA).

0 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.0

Hydrogen flow (mL/min)

Sign

al a

t mas

s 80

(cps

)

BEC

(ppb

)

107

106

105

104

103

102

101

100

104

103

102

101

100

10�1

10�2

10�3

1ppb Se (cps)

Blank (cps)

BEC (ppb)

Figure 3. Background reduction of the argon dimer (40Ar2�) with

hydrogen gas using an octapole reaction cell (Courtesy of AgilentTechnologies, Wilmington, DE).

Quadrupolemass filter

Analyzerquadrupole

Ion–moleculereactions and collisions

Gas inlet

Reactive gas (NH3)

++ ++

++

++++

++ ++++

++++++++++

++ ++

++

++++

++

40Ar16O

ArO� � NH3 O � Ar � NH3�

56Fe

56Fe

NH3�

O

Ar

Figure 4. Elimination of the ArO interference with a dynamic reaction cell.


pole electrical fields, unwanted reac-tions between the gas and the samplematrix or solvent (which could poten-tially lead to new interferences) are pre-vented. Therefore, every time an analyteand interfering ions enter the dynamicreaction cell, the bandpass of thequadrupole can be optimized for thatspecific problem and then changed on-the-fly for the next one. Figure 4 showsa schematic of an analyte ion 56Fe andan isobaric interference 40Ar16O enteringthe dynamic reaction cell. The reactiongas NH3 reacts with the ArO� to formatomic oxygen and argon together witha positive NH3 ion. The quadrupole’selectrical field is then set to allow thetransmission of the analyte ion 56Fe tothe analyzer quadrupole, free of theproblematic isobaric interference,40Ar16O. In addition, the NH3

� is pre-

vented from reacting further to producea new interfering ion. The advantage ofthis approach is that highly reactivegases can be used, which increases thenumber of ion–molecule reactions tak-ing place and therefore more efficientremoval of the interfering species. Ofcourse, this also potentially generatesmore side reactions between the gasand the sample matrix and solvent;however, by dynamically scanning thebandpass of the quadrupole in the reac-tion cell, these reaction by-products arerejected before they can react to formnew interfering ions.

The benefit of the dynamic reactioncell is that by careful selection of the re-action gas, the user takes advantage ofthe different rates of reaction of the an-alyte and the interfering species. Thisprocess is exemplified by the elimina-tion of 40Ar� by NH3 gas in the determi-nation of 40Ca. The reaction between

Tutorial

reactions cannot be easily intercepted.The way around this problem is to use aquadrupole (instead of a hexapole oroctapole) inside the reaction/collisioncell, and use it as a selective bandpassfilter. The benefit of this approach isthat highly reactive gases can be used,which tend to be more efficient at inter-ference reduction. One such develop-ment that uses this approach is calleddynamic reaction cell technology (7, 8).Similar in appearance to the hexapoleand octapole collision/reaction cells, the

dynamic reaction cell is a pressurizedmultipole positioned before the ana-lyzer quadrupole. However, the similar-ity ends there. In dynamic reaction celltechnology, a quadrupole is used in-stead of a hexapole or octapole. Ahighly reactive gas, such as ammonia ormethane, is bled into the cell, which is acatalyst for ion molecule chemistry totake place. By a number of different re-action mechanisms, the gaseous mole-cules react with the interfering ions toconvert them either into an innocuous

species different from theanalyte mass or a harmlessneutral species. The analytemass then emerges from thedynamic reaction cell free ofits interference and steeredinto the analyzer quadru-pole for conventional massseparation. The advantagesof using a quadrupole inthe reaction cell is that thestability regions are muchbetter defined than a hexa-pole or an octapole, so it isrelatively straightforward tooperate the quadrupole in-side the reaction cell as amass or bandpass filter, andnot just an ion-focusingguide. Therefore, by carefuloptimization of the quadru-

��

�

�

�

�

Ca�

Ar�

Ar� � NH3

(Exothermic reaction)

NH3� � Ar

Ca� � NH3

(Endothermic reaction)

no reaction

NH3

Figure 5. The reaction between NH3 and Ar� is exothermic and fast, while there is no reactionbetween NH3 and Ca� in the dynamic reaction cell.

Table II. Typical detection limits in ppt of an ICP-MS system fitted with a dynamicreaction cell (9).

Detection DetectionAnalyte Limit (ppt) Analyte Limit (ppt)

Li 0.08 Co 0.07Be 0.6 60Ni 0.4B 1.1 Zn 1Na 0.3 As 1.2Mg 0.6 Se* 5Al 0.07 Sr 0.02K* 1 Rh 0.0140Ca* 1 In 0.01V* 0.3 Sb 0.06Cr* 0.25 Cs 0.03Mn* 0.09 Pb 0.0356Fe* 0.15 U 0.01

* Indicates elements determined in dynamic reaction cell mode.

Collision/reaction cells

have given a new lease on

life to quadrupole mass

analyzers used in ICP-MS.


Tutorial

NH3 gas and the 40Ar� interference,which is predominantly a charge ex-change, occurs because the ionizationpotential of NH3 (10.2 eV) is low com-pared with that of Ar (15.8 eV). There-fore, the reaction is exothermic and fast;

however, the ionizationpotential of Ca (6.1 eV)is significantly less thanthat of NH3, so the reac-tion, which is endother-mic, is not allowed toproceed (8). Figure 5shows this process ingreater detail.

This highly efficientreaction mechanismtranslates into a dra-matic reduction of thespectral background atmass 40, which isshown graphically inFigure 6. At the opti-mum NH3 flow, a re-duction in the 40Ar

background signal of about eight ordersof magnitude is achieved, resulting in adetection limit of 0.5–1.0 ppt for 40Ca.

Table II shows some typical detectionlimits in parts per trillion (ppt) of anICP-MS system fitted with a dynamic

reaction cell. The elements with an as-terisk were determined using ammoniaor methane as the reaction gas, whilethe other elements were determined inthe standard mode (no reaction gas).

Collision/reaction cells have given anew lease on life to quadrupole massanalyzers used in ICP-MS. They haveenhanced its performance and flexibil-ity, and most definitely opened up thetechnique to more-demanding applica-tions that were previously beyond itscapabilities. However, it must be em-phasized that even though differencesexist between commercially availableinstruments, they all perform very well.The intent of this tutorial is to presentthe benefits of the technology to begin-ners and give an overview of the differ-ent approaches available. If it has cre-ated an interest, I strongly suggest that aperformance evaluation is made basedon your own sample matrices.

References1. K. Sakata and K. Kawabata, Spec-

trochimica Acta 49B, 1027 (1994).2. B.A. Thomson, D.J. Douglas, J.J. Corr,

J.W. Hager, and C.A. Joliffe, Anal. Chem.67, 1696–1704 (1995).

3. P. Turner, T. Merren, J. Speakman, andC. Haines, in Plasma Source MassSpectrometry: Developments and Ap-plications, eds. G. Holland and S. Tan-ner (Royal Society of Chemistry, Cam-bridge, UK, 1996).

4. I. Feldmann, N. Jakubowski, C. Thomas,and D. Stuewer, Fresenius‘ J. Anal.Chem. 365, 422–428 (1999).

5. ”Collision Cell Technology with EnergyDiscrimination,“ Thermo Elemental Ap-plication Note (Thermo Elemental,Franklin, MA, September 2001).

6. E. McCurdy and D. Potter, Agilent Tech-nologies ICP-MS Journal 10, October2001.

7. Covered by U.S. Patent No. 6140638.8. S.D. Tanner and V.I. Baranov, At. Spectr.

20(2), 45–52, (1999).9. U. Voellkopf, K. Klemm, and M. Pfluger,

At. Spectr. 20(2), 53–59, (1999). �

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

NH3 flow (mL/min)

Ion

sign

al (c

ps)

109

108

107

106

105

104

103

102

101

100 ppt Ca

Water blank

Figure 6. A reduction of eight orders of magnitude in the 40Arbackground signal is achievable with the dynamic reaction cell —resulting in �1 ppt detection limit for 40Ca.

Circle 28

odern ICP-MS mustbe very flexible tomeet such diverseapplication needs

and keep up with the increasingdemands of its users. Nowhereis this more important than inthe area of peak integration andmeasurement protocol. The waythe analytical signal is managedin ICP-MS directly impacts itsmultielement capability, detec-tion limits, dynamic range, andsample throughput — the fourmajor strengths that attractedthe trace element community tothe technique almost 20 yearsago. To understand signal man-agement and its implications ondata quality in greater detail,this installment of this serieswill discuss how measurementprotocol is optimized based onthe application’s analytical re-quirements. I will discuss itsimpact on both continuous sig-nals generated by traditionalnebulization devices and tran-sient signals produced by alter-native sample introduction

M

www.spectroscopyonl ine.com28 Spectroscopy 17(7) July 2002

• the detection limits required• the precision and accuracy

expected• the dynamic range needed• the integration time used• the peak quantitation

routines.Before discussing these fac-

tors in greater detail, and howthey affect data quality, it is im-portant to remember how ascanning device such as aquadrupole mass analyzerworks (1). Although we willfocus on quadrupole technol-ogy, the fundamental principlesof measurement protocol will bevery similar for all types of massspectrometers that use a scan-ning approach for multielementpeak quantitation.

Measurement Protocol Figure 1 shows the principles ofscanning with a quadrupolemass analyzer. In this simplifiedexample, the analyte ion (black)and four other ions (colored)have arrived at the entrance tothe four rods of the quadrupole.When a particular rf/dc voltageis applied to the rods, the posi-tive or negative bias on the rodswill electrostatically steer theanalyte ion of interest down themiddle of the four rods to theend, where it will emerge and beconverted to an electrical pulseby the detector. The other ionsof different mass-to-charge ra-tios will pass through the spacesbetween the rods and be ejectedfrom the quadrupole. This scan-ning process is then repeated foranother analyte at a completelydifferent mass-to-charge ratio

techniques such as flow injec-tion and laser ablation.

Measurement VariablesMany variables affect the qualityof the analytical signal in ICP-MS. The analytical requirementsof the application will often dic-tate this factor, but instrumentaldetection and measurement pa-rameters can have a significantimpact on the quality of data inICP-MS. Some of the variablesthat can affect the quality ofyour data, particularly when car-rying out multielement analysis,include • whether the signal is continu-

ous or transient• the temporal length of the

sampling event• the volume of sample

available• the number of samples being

analyzed• the number of replicates per

sample• the number of elements being

determined

With its multielement capability, superb detection limits, wide dynamicrange, and high sample throughput, inductively coupled plasma–massspectrometry (ICP-MS) is proving to be a compelling technique for moreand more diverse application areas. However, no two application areashave the same analytical requirements. For example, environmentaland clinical contract laboratories — although requiring reasonably lowdetection limits — do not really push the technique to its extremedetection capability. Their main requirement is usually high samplethroughput because the number of samples these laboratories cananalyze in a day directly impacts their revenue. On the other hand, asemiconductor fabrication plant or a supplier of high-purity chemicalsto the electronics industry is interested in the lowest detection limits thetechnique can offer because of the contamination problems associatedwith manufacturing high performance electronic devices.


A Beginner‘s Guide to ICP-MSPart XI — Peak Measurement ProtocolRobert Thomas

M


July 2002 17(7) Spectroscopy 29

Tutorial

on the masses of interest. Full peak pro-filing is not normally used for doingrapid quantitative analysis becausevaluable analytical time is wasted takingdata on the wings and valleys of thepeak, where the signal-to-noise ratio ispoorest.

When the best possible detectionlimits are required, the peak-hoppingapproach is best. It is important to un-derstand that, to get the full benefit ofpeak hopping, the best detection limitsare achieved when single-point peakhopping at the peak maximum is cho-sen. However, to carry out single-pointpeak hopping, it is essential that the

mass stability is good enough to repro-ducibly go to the same mass point everytime. If good mass stability can be guar-anteed (usually by thermostating thequadrupole power supply), measuringthe signal at the peak maximum will al-ways give the best detection limits for agiven integration time. It is well docu-mented that there is no benefit tospreading the chosen integration timeover more than one measurement pointper mass. If time is a major considera-tion in the analysis, then using multiplepoints is wasting valuable time on thewings and valleys of the peak, whichcontribute less to the analytical signal

Figure 2. Detection and measurement protocol using a quadrupole mass analyzer.

Figure 1. Principles of mass selection with a quadrupole mass filter.

+

+

+

+

++

+Quadrupole rods

-

+

Ionflow

Quadrupole

Quadrupolemass scancontrollerMultichannel data

acquisition

Channel number

Mass scan (amu)63

Detector

63Cu

63Cu scan

Copper ion (m/z 63)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ............ n

until all the analytes in a multielementanalysis have been measured.

The process for detecting one partic-ular mass in a multielement run is rep-resented in Figure 2, which shows a 63Cuion emerging from the quadrupole andbeing converted to an electrical pulse bythe detector. As the rf/dc voltage of thequadrupole — corresponding to 63Cu— is repeatedly scanned, the ions aselectrical pulses are stored and countedby a multichannel analyzer. This multi-channel data-acquisition system typi-cally has 20 channels per mass and asthe electrical pulses are counted in eachchannel, a profile of the mass is built-up over the 20 channels, correspondingto the spectral peak of 63Cu. In a multi-element run, repeated scans are madeover the entire suite of analyte masses,as opposed to just one mass representedin this example.

The principles of multielement peakacquisition are shown in Figure 3. Inthis example (showing two masses), sig-nal pulses are continually collected asthe quadrupole is swept across the massspectrum (in this case three times).After a given number sweeps, the totalnumber of signal pulses in each channelare counted.

When it comes to quantifying an iso-topic signal in ICP-MS, there are basi-cally two approaches to consider (2).One is the multichannel ramp scanningapproach, which uses a continuoussmooth ramp of 1 to n channels (wheren is typically 20) per mass across thepeak profile. This approach is shown inFigure 4.

The peak-hopping approach is wherethe quadrupole power supply is drivento a discrete position on the peak (nor-mally the peak point) and allowed tosettle; a measurement is then taken for afixed amount of time. This approach isrepresented in Figure 5.

The multipoint scanning approach isbest for accumulating spectral and peakshape information when doing massscans. It is normally used for doingmass calibration and resolution checks,and as a classical qualitative method de-velopment tool to find out what ele-ments are present in the sample, as wellas to assess their spectral implications


and more to the background noise. Fig-ure 6 shows the degradation in signal-to-background noise ratio of 10 ppb Rhwith an increase in the number of pointsper peak, spread over the same total inte-gration time. Detection limit improve-ment for a selected group of elementsusing 1 point/peak, rather than 20points/peak, is shown in Figure 7.

Optimization of MeasurementProtocolNow that the fundamentals of thequadrupole measuring electronics havebeen described, let us now go into moredetail on the impact of optimizing themeasurement protocol based on the re-

quirement of the application. Whenmultielement analysis is being carriedout by ICP-MS, a number of decisionsneed to be made. First, we need to knowif we are dealing with a continuous sig-nal from a nebulizer or a transient sig-nal from an alternative sampling acces-sory. If it is a transient event, how longwill the signal last? Another questionthat needs to be addressed is, how manyelements are going to be determined?With a continuous signal, this isn’t sucha major problem, but it could be anissue if we are dealing with a transientsignal that lasts a few seconds. We alsoneed to be aware of the level of detec-tion capability required. This is a major

consideration with a single-shot laserpulse that lasts 5–10 s. Also with a con-tinuous signal produced by a concentricnebulizer, we might have to accept acompromise of detection limit based onthe speed of analysis requirements oramount of sample available. What ana-lytical precision is expected? If it’s iso-tope ratio/dilution work, how many ions do wehave to count to guarantee good preci-sion? Does increasing the integrationtime of the measurement help the pre-cision? Finally, is there a time constrainton the analysis? A high-throughput lab-oratory might not be able to afford touse the optimum sampling time to getthe ultimate in detection limit. In otherwords, what compromises need to bemade between detection limit, preci-sion, and sample throughput? Clearly,before the measurement protocol canbe optimized, the major analytical re-quirements of the application need tobe defined. Let’s take a look at thisprocess in greater detail.

Multielement Data QualityObjectivesBecause multielement detection capa-bility is probably the major reason why

most laboratories invest in ICP-MS, it isimportant to understand the impact ofmeasurement criteria on detection lim-its. We know that in a multielementanalysis, the quadrupole’s rf/dc ratio isscanned to mass regions or driven,which represent the elements of inter-est. The electronics are allowed to settle

Sweep 1

Number of ionscounted

Sweep 2

Sweep 3

1 60

1 60

1 60

Total

Total ofn

sweeps

1 60

MCA channel number

Figure 3 (above left). A profile of the peak is built up by continually sweeping the quadrupoleacross the mass spectrum.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mass (amu)In

tens

ity (c

ps)

Figure 4 (above right). Multichannel ramp scanning approach using 20 channels per amu.

Table I. Precision of Pb isotope ratio measurement as a function of dwell time using a total integration time of 5.5 s.Dwelltime %RSD, %RSD,(ms) 207Pb/206Pb 208Pb/206Pb

2 0.40 0.365 0.38 0.3610 0.23 0.2225 0.24 0.2550 0.38 0.33100 0.41 0.38

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mass (amu)

Inte

nsity

(cps

)

Figure 5 (below right). Peak-hopping approach.

Tutorial


Tutorial

and then dwell on the peak, or sit, andtake measurements for a fixed period oftime. This step is usually performed anumber of times until the total integra-tion time is fulfilled. For example, if adwell time of 50 ms is selected for allmasses and the total integration time is1 s, then the quadrupole will carry out20 complete sweeps per mass, per repli-cate. It will then repeat the same rou-tine for as many replicates that havebeen built into the method. Thisprocess is illustrated very simplisticallyin Figure 8, which shows the scanningprotocol of a multielement scan ofthree different masses.

In this example, the quadrupole isscanned to mass A. The electronics areallowed to settle (settling time) and leftto dwell for a fixed period of time atone or multiple points on the peak(dwell time); intensity measurementsare then taken (based on the dwelltime). The quadrupole is then scannedto masses B and C and the measure-ment protocol repeated. The completemultielement measurement cycle(sweep) is repeated as many times asneeded to make up the total integrationper peak. It should be emphasized thatthis example is a generalization of themeasurement routine — managementof peak integration by the software will vary slightly, based on different instrumentation.

It is clear from this information that,during a multielement analysis, a sig-

nificant amount of time is spent scan-ning and settling the quadrupole, whichdoesn’t contribute to the quality of theanalytical signal. Therefore, if the meas-urement routine is not optimized care-fully, it can have a negative impact ondata quality. The dwell time can usuallybe selected on an individual mass basis,but the scanning and settling times arenormally fixed because they are a func-tion of the quadrupole and detectorelectronics. For this reason, it is essen-tial that the dwell time — which ulti-mately affects detection limit and preci-sion — must dominate the totalmeasurement time, compared with thescanning and settling times. It follows,therefore, that the measurement dutycycle (percentage of actual measuringtime compared with total integrationtime) is maximized when the quadru-pole and detector electronics settlingtimes are kept to an absolute minimum.Figure 9 shows a plot of percentage ofmeasurement efficiency against dwelltime for four different quadrupole set-tling times — 0.2, 1.0, 3.0, and 5.0 msfor one replicate of a multielement scanof five masses, using one point perpeak. In this example, the total integra-tion time for each mass was 1 s, withthe number of sweeps varying, depend-ing on the dwell time used. For this ex-ercise, the percentage of measurementefficiency is defined by the followingcalculation:

So to achieve the highest measure-ment efficiency, the nonanalytical timemust be kept to an absolute minimum.This leads to more time being spentcounting ions and less time scanningand settling, which does not contributeto the quality of the analytical signal.This factor becomes critically impor-tant when a rapid transient peak isbeing quantified, because the availablemeasuring time is that much shorter(3). Generally speaking, peak quantita-tion using multiple points per peak andlong settling times should be avoided inICP-MS because it ultimately degradesthe quality of the data for a given inte-gration time.

Figure 9 also shows that shorter dwelltimes translate into a lower measure-ment efficiency. For this reason, it isprobably desirable, for normal quanti-tative analysis work, to carry out multi-ple sweeps with longer dwell times(typically 50 ms) to get the best detec-tion limits. So if an integration time of1 s is used for each element, this wouldtranslate into 20 sweeps of 50 ms dwelltime per mass. Although 1 s is longenough to achieve reasonably good de-tection limits, longer integration timesgenerally have to be used to reach the

Dwell Time � #Sweeps � #Elements � #Replicates � 100

Dwell Time � #Sweeps � #Elements � #Replicates �

Scanning / Settling Time � #Sweeps � #Elements � #Replicates

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.01 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Number of points per peak

Ratio

of s

igna

l-to-

back

grou

nd n

oise

(� 1

05 )

Figure 6. Signal-to-background noise ratio degrades when more thanone point, spread over the same integration time, is used for peakquantitation.

4

3

2

1

0Be-9 Co-59 In-115 Tl-205 U-238

Element

Dete

ctio

n lim

it im

prov

emen

t

Figure 7. Detection limit improvement using 1 point/peak rather than 20points/peak over the mass range.


Tutorial

lowest possible detection limits. Figure10 shows detection limit improvementas a function of integration time for238U. As would be expected, there is afairly predictable improvement in thedetection limit as the integration time isincreased because more ions are beingcounted without an increase in thebackground noise. However, this onlyholds true up to the point where thepulse-counting detection system be-comes saturated and no more ions canbe counted. In the case of 238U, this oc-curs around 25 s, because there is noobvious improvement in detection limitat a higher integration time. So fromthese data, we can say that there appearsto be no real benefit in using an inte-gration time longer than 7 s. When de-ciding the length of the integrationtime in ICP-MS, you have to weigh thedetection limit improvement againstthe time taken to achieve that improve-ment. Is it worth spending 25 s measur-ing each mass to get a 0.02 ppt detec-tion limit if 0.03 ppt can be achievedusing a 7-s integration time? Alterna-tively, is it worth measuring for 7 swhen 1 s will only degrade the perform-ance by a factor of 3? It really dependson your data quality objectives.

For applications such as isotopedilution/ratio studies, high precision isalso a very important data quality ob-jective (4). However, to understandwhat is realistically achievable, we mustbe aware of the practical limitations ofmeasuring a signal and counting ions inICP-MS. Counting statistics tells us thatthe standard deviation of the ion signalis proportional to the square root of thesignal. It follows, therefore, that the rel-ative standard deviation (RSD), or pre-cision, should improve with an increasein the number (N) of ions counted asshown by the following equation:

In practice this holds up very well, asshown in Figure 11. In this plot of stan-dard deviation as a function of signalintensity for 208Pb, the dots represent thetheoretical relationship as predicted bycounting statistics. It can be seen thatthe measured standard deviation (bars)follows theory very well up to about100,000 cps. At that point, additionalsources of noise (for example, sample

%RSD � NN

� 100

introduction pulsations or plasma fluc-tuations) dominate the signal, whichleads to poorer standard deviation values.

So based on counting statistics, it islogical to assume that the more ionsthat are counted, the better the preci-sion will be. To put this in perspective,it means that at least 1 million ionsneed to be counted to achieve an RSDof 0.1%. In practice, of course, thesekinds of precision values are very diffi-cult to achieve with a scanning quadru-

Scanning/settling time

100

90

80

70

60

50

40100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

0.2 ms1 ms3 ms5 ms

Dwell time (ms)

% M

easu

rem

ent e

fficie

ncy

Table II. Impact of integration time on the overall analysis time for Pb isotope ratios.Dwell time Number of Integration time %RSD, %RSD, Analysis time

(ms) sweeps (s)/mass 207Pb/206Pb 207Pb/206Pb for 9 reps25 220 5.5 0.24 0.25 2 min 29 s25 500 12.5 0.21 0.19 6 min 12 s25 700 17.5 0.20 0.17 8 min 29 s

Increasing mass

Settle, dwell,measure


ScanScan

Mass A Mass B Mass C

Scan

Scan back to massA and repeat


Figure 8 (left).Multielement scanning andmeasurement protocol of aquadrupole.

Figure 9 (below). Percentof measurement efficiencyas a function of dwell timewith varying scanning/settling times.


Tutorial

pole system because of the additionalsources of noise. If this information iscombined with our knowledge of howthe quadrupole is scanned, we begin tounderstand what is required to get thebest precision. This is confirmed by thespectral scan in Figure 12, which showsthe predicted precision at all 20 chan-nels of a 5 ppb 208Pb peak (2).

Therefore, the best precision is ob-tained at the channels where the signalis highest, which as we can see are the

ones at or near the center of the peak.For this reason, if good precision is afundamental requirement of your dataquality objectives, it is best to usesingle-point peak hopping with integra-tion times in the order of 5–10 s. Onthe other hand, if high-precision iso-tope ratio or isotope dilution work isbeing done — in which analysts wouldlike to achieve precision values ap-proaching counting statistics — thenmuch longer measuring times are re-

quired. That is why integration times of5–10 min are commonly used for deter-mining isotope ratios with a quadru-pole ICP-MS system (5, 6). For this typeof analysis, when two or more isotopesare being measured and ratioed to eachother, it follows that the more simulta-neous the measurement, the better theprecision becomes. Therefore, the abil-ity to make the measurement as simul-taneous as possible is considered moredesirable than any other aspect of themeasurement. This is supported by thefact that the best isotope ratio precisiondata are obtained with time-of-flight ormulticollector, magnetic sector ICP-MSsystems, which are both considered si-multaneous in nature. So the best wayto approximate simultaneous measure-ment with a rapid scanning device, suchas a quadrupole, is to use shorter dwelland scanning/settling times, resulting inmore sweeps for a given integrationtime. Table I shows precision of Pb iso-tope ratios at different dwell times car-ried out by researchers at the GeologicalSurvey of Israel (7). The data are basedon nine replicates of a NIST SRM-981(75 ppb Pb) solution, using 5.5 s of in-tegration time per isotope.

From these data, the researchers con-cluded that a dwell time of 10 or 25 msoffered the best isotope ratio precisionmeasurement (quadrupole settling timewas fixed at 0.2 ms). They also foundthat they could achieve slightly betterprecision by using a 17.5-s integrationtime (700 sweeps at a 25-ms dwelltime), but felt the marginal improve-ment in precision for nine replicateswas not worth spending the approxi-mately 3.5-times-longer analysis time,as shown in Table II.

This work shows the benefit of opti-mizing the dwell time, settling time,and the number of sweeps to get thebest isotope ratio precision data. Theresearchers were also very fortunate tobe dealing with relatively healthy signalsfor the three Pb isotopes, 206Pb, 207Pb,and 208Pb (24.1%, 22.1%, and 52.4%abundance, respectively). If the isotopicsignals were dramatically different likein 235U to 238U (0.72 % and 99.2745%abundance, respectively), then the abil-ity to optimize the measurement proto-

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.001 3 5 7 9 25 50

Integration time (s)

Dete

ctio

n lim

it (n

g/L,

ppt)

Figure 10. Plot of detection limit against integration time for 238U.

Figure 11. Comparison of measured standard deviation of a 208Pb signal against that predicted bycounting statistics.

10,000

1000

100

10

1101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Signal intensity (cps)

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

n (c

ps)

PredictedMeasured


Conference Preview

col for individual isotopes becomes ofeven greater importance to guaranteeprecise data.

It is clear that the analytical demandsput on ICP-MS are probably higherthan any other trace element techniquebecause it is continually being asked tosolve a wide variety of applicationproblems. However, by optimizing themeasurement protocol to fit the analyt-ical requirement, ICP-MS has shownthat it has the capability to carry outrapid trace element analysis, with su-perb detection limits and good preci-sion on both continuous and transientsignals, and still meet the most strin-gent data quality objectives.

References1. R. Thomas, Spectroscopy 16(10),

44–48 (2001).2. E.R. Denoyer, At. Spectroscopy 13(3),

93–98 (1992).3. E.R. Denoyer and Q.H. Lu, At. Spec-

troscopy 14(6), 162–169 (1993).4. T. Catterick, H. Handley, and S. Merson,

At. Spectroscopy 16(10), 229–234(1995).

5. T.A. Hinners, E.M. Heithmar, T.M. Spit-tler, and J.M. Henshaw, Anal. Chem. 59,2658–2662 (1987).

6. M. Janghorbani, B.T.G. Ting, and N.E.Lynch, Microchemica Acta 3, 315–328,(1989).

7. L. Halicz, Y. Erel, and A. Veron, At. Spec-troscopy 17(5), 186–189 (1996). �

applications and provides everythingnecessary for a typical x-ray detector,incorporating one DXP spectrometerchannel, preamplifier power, and detec-tor HV bias in one compact chassis. Itsinput is compatible with a wide rangeof common detectors, including pulsedoptical reset, transistor reset, and RCfeedback preamplifiers. The Saturn of-fers complete computer control over allamplifier and spectrometer functionsincluding gain, filter peaking time, andpileup inspection criteria. Its DXP digi-tal filters significantly increase through-put compared to typical analog systems.

The new X-Beam x-ray source fromX-Ray Optical Systems (Albany, NY)delivers an intense, micrometer-sizedfocal spot. Designed for OEM use inmicro-XRF instruments, the compactunit uses polycapillary focusing optics

Figure 12. Comparison of % RSD with signalintensity across the mass profile of a 208Pb peak.

and 50 W of power to generate an ex-tremely high flux-density gain, the com-pany reports. Increased spatial resolutionand beam stability are also promised. Anintegrated cooling system eliminates theneed for a separate cooling unit.

Attendees can see many of theseproducts, along with others not men-tioned, at the 2002 Denver X-ray Con-ference — sponsored by the Interna-tional Centre for Diffraction Data — atAntlers Adam’s Mark Hotel (formerlyAntlers Doubletree Hotel), ColoradoSprings, Colorado, July 29–August 2,2002. For more information, contactDenise Flaherty, DXC Conference Co-ordinator, 12 Campus Boulevard, New-town Square, PA 19073-3273, (610)325-9814, fax: (610) 325-9823,e-mail: [email protected], web site:www.dxcicdd.com. �

Circle 25

“Conference Preview” continued frompage 271.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

207.5

207.6

207.7

207.8

207.9 20

820

8.1

208.

220

8.3

208.

420

8.5

Mass (m/z)

Sens

itivit

y (c

ps �

105 )

Pred

icted

pre

cisio

n fro

m c

ount

ing

cps%RSD

We have previously covered themajor instrumental componentsof an ICP mass spectrometer; nowlet’s turn our attention to thetechnique’s most common inter-ferences and what methods areused to compensate for them. Al-though interferences are reason-ably well understood in induc-tively coupled plasma–massspectrometry (ICP-MS), it canoften be difficult and time-consuming to compensate forthem, particularly in complexsample matrices. Having priorknowledge of the interferences as-sociated with a particular set ofsamples will often dictate thesample preparation steps and theinstrumental methodology used toanalyze them.

nterferences in ICP-MS aregenerally classified intothree major groups — spec-tral, matrix, and physical.

Each of them has the potential tobe problematic in its own right,but modern instrumentation andgood software, combined withoptimized analytical methodolo-gies, has minimized their negativeimpact on trace element determi-nations by ICP-MS. Let us take alook at these interferences ingreater detail and describe thedifferent approaches used tocompensate for them.

Spectral InterferencesSpectral overlaps are probablythe most serious types of inter-

I

www.spectroscopyonl ine.com24 Spectroscopy 17(10) October 2002

40, whereas the combination ofargon and oxygen in an aqueoussample generates the 40Ar16O in-terference, which has a signifi-cant impact on the major iso-tope of Fe at mass 56. Thecomplexity of these kinds ofspectral problems can be seen inFigure 1, which shows a massspectrum of deionized waterfrom mass 40 to mass 90.

Additionally, argon can alsoform polyatomic interferenceswith elements found in the acidsused to dissolve the sample. Forexample in a hydrochloric acidmedium, 40Ar combines with themost abundant chlorine isotopeat 35 amu to form 40Ar35Cl,which interferes with the onlyisotope of arsenic at mass 75,while in an organic solvent ma-

ferences seen in ICP-MS. Themost common type is known asa polyatomic or molecular spec-tral interference, which is pro-duced by the combination oftwo or more atomic ions. Theyare caused by a variety of factors,but are usually associated witheither the plasma and nebulizergas used, matrix components inthe solvent and sample, otheranalyte elements, or entrainedoxygen or nitrogen from the sur-rounding air. For example, in theargon plasma, spectral overlapscaused by argon ions and combi-nations of argon ions with otherspecies are very common. Themost abundant isotope of argonis at mass 40, which dramaticallyinterferes with the most abun-dant isotope of calcium at mass


A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart XII — A Review of Interferences

Robert Thomas

I


Figure 1. Mass spectrum of deionized water from mass 40 to mass 85.

3

2

1

40 50 60 70 80 90

Mass (amu)

Inte

nsity

(cp

s �

105 )

40Ar40ArH

12C16O16O14N16O16O

40Ar16O

40Ar12C

CO2H

40Ar16O

40Ar18O

40Ar40Ar

40Ar40ArH

40Ar38Ar

40Ar36Ar

40Ar14N

October 2002 17(10) Spectroscopy 25

Tutorial

Figure 2. Relative isotopic abundances of the naturally occurring elements, showing all the potential isobaric interferences.

1 H 99.985 2 H 0.015 3 He 0.000137 4 He 99.999863 5 6 Li 7.5 7 Li 92.5 8 9 Be 10010 B 19.911 B 80.112 C 98.9013 C 1.1014 N 99.64315 N 0.36616 O 99.76217 O 0.03818 O 0.20019 F 10020 Ne 90.4821 Ne 0.2722 Ne 9.2523 Na 10024 Mg 78.9925 Mg 10.0026 Mg 11.0127 Al 10028 Si 92.2329 Si 4.6730 Si 3.1031 P 10032 S 95.0233 S 0.7534 S 4.2135 Cl 75.7736 S 0.02 Ar 0.33737 Cl 24.2338 Ar 0.06339 K 93.258140 K 0.0117 Ca 96.941 Ar 99.60041 K 6.730242 Ca 0.64743 Ca 0.13544 Ca 2.08645 Sc 10046 Ti 8.0 Ca 0.00447 Ti 7.348 Ti 73.8 Ca 0.18749 Ti 5.550 Ti 5.4 V 0.250 Cr 4.34551 V 99.75052 Cr 83.78953 Cr 9.50154 Fe 5.8 Cr 2.36555 Mn 10056 Fe 91.7257 Fe 2.258 Fe 0.28 Ni 68.07759 Co 10060 Ni 26.223

61 Ni 1.140 62 Ni 3.634 63 Cu 69.17 64 Zn 48.6 Ni 0.926 65 Cu 30.83 66 Zn 27.9 67 Zn 4.1 68 Zn 18.8 69 Ga 60.108 70 Ge 21.23 Zn 0.6 71 Ga 39.892 72 Ge 27.66 73 Ge 7.73 74 Ge 35.94 Se 0.89 75 As 100 76 Ge 7.44 Se 9.36 77 Se 7.63 78 Kr 0.35 Se 23.78 79 Br 50.69 80 Kr 2.25 Se 49.61 81 Br 49.31 82 Kr 11.6 Se 8.73 83 Kr 11.5 84 Kr 57.0 Sr 0.56 85 Rb 72.165 86 Kr 17.3 Sr 9.86 87 Sr 7.00 Rb 27.835 88 Sr 82.58 89 Y 100 90 Zr 51.45 91 Zr 11.22 92 Zr 17.15 Mo 14.84 93 Nb 100 94 Zr 17.38 Mo 9.25 95 Mo 15.92 96 Zr 2.80 Mo 16.68 Ru 5.52 97 Mo 9.55 98 Mo 24.13 Ru 1.88 99 Ru 12.7100 Mo 9.63 Ru 12.6101 Ru 17.0102 Pd 1.02 Ru 31.6103 Rh 100104 Pd 11.14 Ru 18.7105 Pd 22.33106 Pd 27.33 Cd 1.25107 Ag 51.839108 Pd 26.46 Cd 0.89109 Ag 48.161110 Pd 11.72 Cd 12.49111 Cd 12.80112 Sn 0.97 Cd 24.13113 Cd 12.22 In 4.3114 Sn 0.65 Cd 28.73115 Sn 0.34 In 95.7116 Sn 14.53 Cd 7.49117 Sn 7.68118 Sn 24.23119 Sn 8.59120 Sn 32.59 Te 0.096

121 Sb 57.36122 Sn 4.63 Te 2.603 123 Te 0.908 Sb 42.64124 Sn 5.79 Te 4.816 Xe 0.10125 Te 7.139126 Te 18.95 Xe 0.09127 I 100128 Te 31.69 Xe 1.91129 Xe 26.4130 Ba 0.106 Te 33.80 Xe 4.1131 Xe 21.2132 Ba 0.101 Xe 26.9133 Ce 100134 Ba 2.417 Xe 10.4135 Ba 6.592136 Ba 7.854 Ce 0.19 Xe 8.9137 Ba 11.23138 Ba 71.70 Ce 0.25 La 0.0902139 La 99.9098140 Ce 88.48141 Pr 100142 Nd 27.13 Ce 11.08143 Nd 12.18144 Nd 23.80 Sm 3.1145 Nd 8.30146 Nd 17.19147 Sm 15.0148 Nd 5.76 Sm 11.3149 Sm 13.8150 Nd 5.64 Sm 7.4151 Eu 47.8152 Gd 0.20 Sm 26.7153 Eu 52.2154 Gd 2.18 Sm 22.7155 Gd 14.80156 Gd 20.47 Dy 0.06157 Gd 15.65158 Gd 24.84 Dy 0.10159 Tb 100160 Gd 21.86 Dy 2.34161 Dy 18.9162 Er 0.14 Dy 25.5163 Dy 24.9164 Er 1.61 Dy 28.2165 Ho 100166 Er 33.6167 Er 22.95168 Er 26.8 Yb 0.13169 Tm 100170 Er 14.9 Yb 3.05171 Yb 14.3172 Yb 21.9173 Yb 16.12174 Yb 31.8 Hf 0.162175 Lu 97.41176 Lu 2.59 Yb 12.7 Hf 5.206177 Hf 18.606178 Hf 27.297179 Hf 13.629180 Ta 0.012 W 0.13 Hf 35.100

181 Ta 99.988182 W 26.3 183 W 14.3184 Os 0.02 W 30.67185 Re 37.40186 Os 1.58 W 28.6187 Os 1.6 Re 62.60188 Os 13.3189 Os 16.1190 Os 26.4 Pt 0.01191 Ir 37.3192 Os 41.0 Pt 0.79193 Ir 62.7194 Pt 32.9195 Pt 33.8196 Hg 0.15 Pt 25.3197 Au 100198 Hg 9.97 Pt 7.2199 Hg 16.87200 Hg 23.10201 Hg 13.18202 Hg 29.86203 Tl 29.524204 Hg 6.87 Pb 1.4205 Tl 70.476206 Pb 24.1207 Pb 22.1208 Pb 52.4209 Bi 100210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231 Pa 100232 Th 100233234 U 0.0055235 U 0.7200236237238 U 99.2745

Isotope Isotope Isotope Isotope% % % % % % % % % % % %

Relative Abundance of the Natural Isotopes

Oxides, Hydroxides, Hydrides, andDoubly Charged SpeciesAnother type of spectral interference isproduced by elements in the samplecombining with H, 16O, or 16OH (eitherfrom water or air) to form molecularhydride (H), oxide (16O), and hydroxide(16OH) ions, which occur at 1, 16, and17 mass units higher than its mass (2).These interferences are typically pro-duced in the cooler zones of the plasma,immediately before the interface region.They are usually more serious whenrare earth or refractory-type elementsare present in the sample, because manyof them readily form molecular species(particularly oxides), which create spec-tral overlap problems on other elementsin the same group. Associated withoxide-based spectral overlaps are dou-bly charged spectral interferences.These are species that are formed when

an ion is generated with a double posi-tive charge, as opposed to a normal sin-gle charge, and produces a peak at halfits mass. Like the formation of oxides,the level of doubly charged species is re-lated to the ionization conditions in theplasma and can usually be minimizedby careful optimization of the nebulizergas flow, rf power, and sampling posi-tion within the plasma. It can also beimpacted by the severity of the second-ary discharge present at the interface(3), which was described in greater de-tail in Part IV of the series (4). Table IIshows a selected group of elements, thatreadily form oxides, hydroxides, hy-drides, and doubly charged species, to-gether with the analytes that are af-fected by them.

trix, argon and carbon combine to form40Ar12C, which interferes with 52Cr, themost abundant isotope of chromium.Sometimes, matrix or solvent speciesneed no help from argon ions and com-bine to form spectral interferences oftheir own. A good example is in a sam-ple that contains sulfuric acid. Thedominant sulfur isotope 32S combineswith two oxygen ions to form a32S16O16O molecular ion, which inter-feres with the major isotope of Zn atmass 64. In the analysis of samples con-taining high concentrations of sodium,such as seawater, the most abundantisotope of Cu at mass 63 cannot be usedbecause of interference from the40Ar23Na molecular ion. There are manymore examples of these kinds of poly-atomic and molecular interferences (1).Table I represents some of the mostcommon ones seen in ICP-MS.


Tutorial

Isobaric InterferencesThe final classification of spectral inter-ferences is called “isobaric overlaps,”produced mainly by different isotopesof other elements in the sample thatcreate spectral interferences at the samemass as the analyte. For example, vana-dium has two isotopes at 50 and 51amu. However, mass 50 is the onlypractical isotope to use in the presence

of a chloride matrix, because of thelarge contribution from the 16O35Cl in-terference at mass 51. Unfortunatelymass 50 amu, which is only 0.25%abundant, also coincides with isotopesof titanium and chromium, which are5.4% and 4.3% abundant, respectively.This makes the determination of vana-dium in the presence of titanium andchromium very difficult unless mathe-matical corrections are made. Figure 2— the relative abundance of the natu-rally occurring isotopes — shows all thenaturally occuring isobaric spectraloverlaps possible in ICP-MS (5).

Ways to Compensate for SpectralInterferencesLet us look at the different approachesused to compensate for spectral interfer-ences. One of the very first ways used toget around severe matrix-derived spectralinterferences was to remove the matrixsomehow. In the early days, this involvedprecipitating the matrix with a complex-ing agent and then filtering off the pre-cipitate. However, this has been more re-cently carried out by automated matrixremoval and analyte preconcentrationtechniques using chromatography-typeequipment. In fact, this method is pre-ferred for carrying out trace metal deter-minations in seawater because of the ma-trix and spectral problems associatedwith such high concentrations of sodiumand magnesium chloride (6).

Mathematical Correction EquationsAnother method that has been success-fully used to compensate for isobaricinterferences and some less severe poly-atomic overlaps (when no alternativeisotopes are available for quantitation)is to use mathematical interference cor-rection equations. Similar to inter-element corrections (IECs) in ICP–optical emission spectroscopy, thismethod works on the principle ofmeasuring the intensity of the interfer-ing isotope or interfering species at an-other mass, which ideally is free of anyinterferences. A correction is then ap-plied by knowing the ratio of the inten-sity of the interfering species at the ana-lyte mass to its intensity at the alternatemass.

Let’s take a look at a real-world ex-ample of this type of correction. Themost sensitive isotope for cadmium isat mass 114. However, there is also aminor isotope of tin at mass 114. Thismeans that if there is any tin in thesample, quantitation using 114Cd canonly be carried out if a correction ismade for 114Sn. Fortunately Sn has atotal of 10 isotopes, which means thatat least one of them will probably befree of a spectral interference. There-fore, by measuring the intensity of Sn atone of its most abundant isotopes (typ-ically 118Sn) and ratioing it to 114Sn, acorrection is made in the method soft-ware in the following manner:

Table I. Some common plasma, matrix, and solvent-related polyatomic spectral interferences seen in ICP-MS.

Element/ Matrix/ Isotope solvent Interference

39K H2O 38ArH40Ca H2O 40Ar56Fe H2O 40Ar16O80Se H2O 40Ar40Ar51V HCl 35Cl16O

75As HCl 40Ar35Ci28Si HNO3

14N14N44Ca HNO3

14N14N16O55Mn HNO3

40Ar15N48Ti H2SO4

32S16O52Cr H2SO4

34S18O64Zn H2SO4

32S16O16O63Cu H3PO4

31P16O16O24Mg Organics 12C12C52Cr Organics 40Ar12C65Cu Minerals 48Ca16OH64Zn Minerals 48Ca16O63Cu Seawater 40Ar23Na

Figure 3. Spectral scan of 100 ppt 56Fe and deionized water using coolplasma conditions.

54 55 56 57 58

Mass (amu)

Ion

sign

al

Blank H2O

100 ppt Fe

Figure 4. Reduction of the 40Ar35Cl interference makes it possible todetermine low ppt levels of monoisotopic 75As in a high chloride matrixusing dynamic reaction cell technology.

30

20

10

073 74 75 76 77

Mass (amu)

1000 ppm NaCl

50 ppt As in 1000 ppm NaCl


Tutorial

Total counts at mass 114 � 114Cd � 114Sn

Therefore 114Cd � total counts at mass114 � 114Sn

To find out the contribution from 114Sn,it is measured at the interference-freeisotope of 118Sn and a correction of theratio of 114Sn/118Sn is applied:

Which means 114Cd � counts at mass114 � (114Sn/118Sn) � (118Sn)

Now the ratio (114Sn/118Sn) is the ratio ofthe natural abundances of these twoisotopes (0.65%/24.23%) and is alwaysconstant

Therefore 114Cd � mass 114 �(0.65%/24.23%) � (118Sn)

or 114Cd � mass 114 � (0.0268) �(118Sn)

An interference correction for 114Cdwould then be entered in the software as:

�(0.0268)*(118Sn).

This is a relatively simple example,but explains the basic principles of theprocess. In practice, especially in spec-trally complex samples, correctionsoften have to be made to the isotopebeing used for the correction — thesecorrections are in addition to the ana-lyte mass, which makes the mathemati-cal equation far more complex.

This approach can also be used forsome less severe polyatomic-type spec-tral interferences. For example, in thedetermination of V at mass 51 in di-luted brine (typically 1000 ppm NaCl),there is a substantial spectral interfer-ence from 35Cl16O at mass 51. By meas-uring the intensity of the 37Cl16O at mass53, which is free of any interference, acorrection can be applied in a similarway to the previous example.

Cool/Cold Plasma TechnologyIf the intensity of the interference islarge, and analyte intensity is extremely

Circle 17

Table II. Some elements that readily form oxides, hydroxides,or hydrides and doubly charged species in the plasma and the analyte affected by the potential interference.

Oxide/hydroxide/hydride doubly charged species Analyte

40Ca16O 56Fe48Ti16O 64Zn

98Mo16O 114Cd138Ba16O 154Sm, 154Gd139La16O 155Gd140Ce16O 156Gd, 156Dy

40Ca16OH 57Fe31P18O16OH 66Zn

79BrH 80Se31P16O2H 64Zn

138Ba2� 69Ga139La2� 69Ga140Ce2� 70Ge, 70Zn


Tutorial

low, mathematical equations are notideally suited as a correction method.For that reason, alternative approacheshave to be considered to compensatefor the interference. One such ap-proach, which has helped to reducesome of the severe polyatomic overlaps,

Circle 18

is to use cold/cool plasma conditions.This technology, which was reported inthe literature in the late 1980s, uses alow-temperature plasma to minimizethe formation of certain argon-basedpolyatomic species (7).

Under normal plasma conditions(typically 1000–1400 W rf power and0.8–1.0 L/min of nebulizer gas flow),argon ions combine with matrix andsolvent components to generate prob-lematic spectral interferences such as38ArH, 40Ar, and 40Ar16O, which impact

Figure 5 (above). Separation of 75As from 40Ar35Cl using the high resolvingpower (10,000) of a double-focusing magnetic sector instrument(Courtesy of Thermo Finnigan).

74.905 74.915 74.925 74.935 74.945

Mass

10 ppb As in 1% HCI40Ar35Cl

75As

Figure 6 (upper right). The transmission characteristics of a magneticsector ICP mass spectrometer decreases as the resolving power increases.

100

80

60

40

20

0400 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000

Resolution

Tran

smis

sion

(%

)


Tutorial

the detection limits of a small numberof elements including K, Ca, and Fe. Byusing cool plasma conditions (500–800W rf power and 1.5–1.8 L/min nebu-lizer gas flow), the ionization condi-tions in the plasma are changed so thatmany of these interferences are dramat-ically reduced. The result is that detec-tion limits for this group of elementsare significantly enhanced (8).

An example of this improvement isseen in Figure 3, which shows a spectralscan of 100 ppt of 56Fe (its most sensi-tive isotope) using cool plasma condi-tions. It can be clearly seen that there isvirtually no contribution from 40Ar16O,as indicated by the extremely low back-ground for deionized water, resulting insingle-figure parts-per-trillion (ppt) de-tection limits for iron. Under normalplasma conditions, the 40Ar16O intensityis so large that it would completelyoverlap the 56Fe peak.

Cool plasma conditions are limitedto a small group of elements in simpleaqueous solutions that are prone toargon-based spectral interferences. Itoffers very little benefit for the majorityof the other elements, because its ion-ization temperature is significantlylower than a normal plasma. In addi-tion, it is often impractical for theanalysis of complex samples, because ofsevere signal suppression caused by thematrix.

Collision/Reaction CellsThese limitations have led to the devel-opment of collision and reaction cells,

which use ion–molecule collisions andreactions to cleanse the ion beam ofharmful polyatomic and molecular in-terferences before they enter the massanalyzer. Collision/reaction cells areshowing enormous potential to elimi-nate spectral interferences and makeavailable isotopes that were previouslyunavailable for quantitation. For exam-ple, Figure 4 shows a spectral scan of 50ppt As in 1000 ppm NaCl, together with1000 ppm NaCl at mass 75, using a dy-namic reaction cell with hydrogen/argonmixture as the reaction gas. It can beseen that there is insignificant contribu-tion from the 40Ar35Cl interference, as in-dicated by the NaCl baseline. The capa-bility of this type of reaction cell tovirtually eliminate the 40Ar35Cl interfer-ence now makes it possible to determinelow ppt levels of mono-isotopic 75As in ahigh chloride matrix — previously notachievable by conventional interferencecorrection methods (9). For a completereview of the benefits of collision/reac-tion cells for ICP-MS, refer to part 9 ofthis series (10).

High Resolution Mass AnalyzersThe best and probably most efficientway to remove spectral overlaps is to re-solve them away using a high resolutionmass spectrometer (11). During thepast 10 years this approach, particularlywith double-focusing magnetic sectormass analyzers, has proved to be invalu-able for separating many of the prob-lematic polyatomic and molecular in-terferences seen in ICP-MS, without the

need to use cool plasma conditions orcollision/reaction cells. Figure 5 shows10 ppb of 75As resolved from the 40Ar35Clinterference in a 1% hydrochloric acidmatrix, using normal, hot plasma con-ditions and a resolution setting of10,000.

However, even though their resolvingcapability is far more powerful thanquadrupole-based instruments, there is asacrifice in sensitivity if extremely highresolution is used, as shown in Figure 6.This can often translate into a degrada-tion in detection capability for some ele-ments, compared to other spectral inter-ference correction approaches. You willfind an overview of the benefits of mag-netic sector technology for ICP-MS inpart VII of this series (12).

Matrix InterferencesLet’s now take a look at the other classof interference in ICP-MS — suppres-sion of the signal by the matrix itself.There are basically two types of matrix-induced interferences. The first andsimplest to overcome is often called asample transport effect and is a physicalsuppression of the analyte signal,brought on by the matrix components.It is caused by the sample’s impact ondroplet formation in the nebulizer ordroplet-size selection in the spraychamber. In the case of organic matri-ces, it is usually caused by a differencein sample viscosities of the solventsbeing aspirated. In some matrices, sig-nal suppression is caused not so much

Figure 8. The analyte response curve is updated across the full massrange, based on the intensities of low, medium, and high mass internalstandards.

Figure 7. Matrix suppression caused by increasing concentrations ofHNO3, using cool plasma conditions (rf power: 800 W, nebulizer gas: 1.5L/min).

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.00 % 1 % 5 %

Concentration of HNO3

NaAlKCaFeCuZn

0 250

Mass (amu)

Sens

itivi

ty

Updated response curve

Original response curveLow mass

internal standard

Medium massinternal standard

High massinternal standard


Tutorial

by sample transport effects, but by itsimpact on the ionization temperatureof the plasma discharge. This is exem-plified when different concentrations ofacids are aspirated into a cool plasma.The ionization conditions in the plasmaare so fragile that higher concentrationsof acid result in severe suppression ofthe analyte signal. Figure 7 shows thesensitivity for a selected group of ele-ments in varying concentrations of ni-tric acid in a cool plasma (13).

Internal StandardizationThe classic way to compensate for aphysical interference is to use internalstandardization. With this method ofcorrection, a small group of elements(usually at the parts-per-billion level)are spiked into the samples, calibrationstandards, and blank to correct for anyvariations in the response of the ele-ments caused by the matrix. As the in-tensity of the internal standards change,the element responses are updatedevery time a sample is analyzed. Thefollowing criteria are typically used forselecting the internal standards:● They are not present in the sample ● The sample matrix or analyte ele-

ments do not spectrally interferewith them

● They do not spectrally interfere withthe analyte masses

● They should not be elements thatare considered environmentalcontaminants

● They are usually grouped with ana-lyte elements of a similar mass range.For example, a low mass internalstandard is grouped with the lowmass analyte elements and so on upthe mass range

● They should be of a similar ioniza-tion potential to the groups of ana-lyte elements so they behave in a sim-ilar manner in the plasma

● Some of the common ones reportedto be good candidates include 9Be,45Sc, 59Co, 74Ge, 89Y, 103Rh, 115In, 169Tm,175Lu, 187Re, and 232Th.A simplified representation of inter-

nal standardization is seen in Figure 8,which shows updating the analyte re-sponse curve across the full mass range,based on the intensities of low,

medium, and high mass internal stan-dards. It should also be noted that in-ternal standardization is also used tocompensate for long-term signal driftproduced by matrix components slowlyblocking the sampler and skimmer coneorifices. Even though total dissolvedsolids are kept below �0.2% in ICP-MS, this can still produce instability ofthe analyte signal over time with somesample matrices.

Space-Charge InterferencesMany of the early researchers reportedthat the magnitude of signal suppres-sion in ICP-MS increased with decreas-ing atomic mass of the analyte ion (14).More recently it has been suggested thatthe major cause of this kind of suppres-sion is the result of poor transmissionof ions through the ion optics due tomatrix-induced space charge effects(15). This has the effect of defocusingthe ion beam, which leads to poor sen-sitivity and detection limits, especiallywhen trace levels of low mass elementsare being determined in the presence oflarge concentrations of high mass ma-trices. Unless any compensation ismade, the high-mass matrix elementwill dominate the ion beam, pushingthe lighter elements out of the way.Figure 9 shows the classic space chargeeffects of a uranium (major isotope238U) matrix on the determination of7Li, 9Be, 24Mg, 55Mn, 85Rb, 115In, 133Cs, 205Tl,and 208Pb. The suppression of low masselements such as Li and Be is signifi-cantly higher than with high mass ele-ments such as Tl and Pb in the presenceof 1000 ppm uranium.

There are a number of ways to com-pensate for space charge matrix sup-pression in ICP-MS. Internal standardi-zation has been used, but unfortunatelydoesn’t address the fundamental causeof the problem. The most common ap-proach used to alleviate or at least re-duce space charge effects is to applyvoltages to the individual ion lens com-ponents. This is achieved in a numberof ways but, irrespective of the design ofthe ion focusing system, its main func-tion is to reduce matrix-based suppres-sion effects by steering as many of theanalyte ions through to the mass ana-

lyzer while rejecting the maximumnumber of matrix ions. Space charge ef-fects and different designs of ion opticswere described in greater detail in partV of this series (16).

References1. G. Horlick and S.N. Tan, Appl. Spectrosc.

40, 4 (1986).2. G. Horlick and S.N. Tan, Appl. Spectrosc.

40, 4 (1986).3. D.J. Douglas and J.B. French, Spec-

trochim. Acta 41B(3), 197 (1986).4. R. Thomas, Spectroscopy 16(7), 26–34,

(2001).5. ”Isotopic Composition of the Ele-

ments,“ Pure Applied Chemistry 63(7),991–1002, (IUPAC, 1991).

6. S.N. Willie, Y. Iida, and J.W. McLaren,Atom. Spectrosc. 19(3), 67 (1998).

7. S.J. Jiang, R.S. Houk, and M.A. Stevens,Anal. Chem. 60, 1217 (1988).

8. S.D. Tanner, M. Paul, S.A. Beres, andE.R. Denoyer, Atom. Spectrosc. 16(1),16 (1995).

9. K.R. Neubauer and R.E. Wolf, ”Determi-nation of Arsenic in Chloride Matrices,“PerkinElmer Instruments ApplicationNote (PerkinElmer Instruments, Shel-ton, CT, 2000).

10. R. Thomas, Spectroscopy 17(2), 42–48,(2002).

11. R. Hutton, A. Walsh, D. Milton, and J.Cantle, ChemSA 17, 213–215 (1992).

12. R. Thomas, Spectroscopy 16(11),22–27, (2001).

13. J.M. Collard, K. Kawabata, Y. Kishi, andR. Thomas, Micro, January, 2002.

14. J.A. Olivares and R.S Houk, Anal. Chem.58, 20 (1986).

15. S.D. Tanner, D.J. Douglas, and J.B.French, Appl. Spectrosc. 48, 1373,(1994).

16. R. Thomas, Spectroscopy 16(9), 38–46,(2001). ■

Figure 9. Space charge matrix suppressioncaused by 1000 ppm uranium is significantlyhigher on low mass elements Li and Be than it iswith the high mass elements Tl and Pb.

120100806040200

0 50 100 150 200 250

7Li, 9Be

205Tl, 208Pb

Mass (amu)

Reco

very

Table I. Precision of Pb isotope ratio measurement as a function of dwell time using a total integration time of 5.5 s.Dwelltime %RSD, %RSD,(ms) 207Pb/206Pb 208Pb/206Pb

2 0.40 0.365 0.38 0.3610 0.23 0.2225 0.24 0.2550 0.38 0.33100 0.41 0.38

lectrothermal atomiza-tion (ETA) for use withatomic absorption (AA)

has proven to be a very sensitivetechnique for trace elementanalysis during the previousthree decades; however, the pos-sibility of using the atomization/heating device for electrothermalvaporization (ETV) sample in-troduction into an ICP massspectrometer was identified inthe late 1980s (2). The ETV sam-pling process relies on the basicprinciple that a carbon furnaceor metal filament can be used tothermally separate the analytesfrom the matrix componentsand then sweep them into theICP mass spectrometer foranalysis. This is achieved by in-jecting a small amount of thesample (usually 20–50 �L via anautosampler) into a graphitetube or onto a metal filament.After the sample is introduced,drying, charring, and vaporiza-tion are achieved by slowly heat-ing the graphite tube/metal fila-ment. The sample material isvaporized into a flowing streamof carrier gas, which passesthrough the furnace or over the

E


slowly heated to drive off thesolvent. Opposed gas flows, en-tering from each end of thegraphite tube, then purge thesample cell by forcing the evolv-ing vapors out the dosing hole.As the temperature increases,volatile matrix components arevented during the charringsteps. Just before vaporization,the gas flows within the samplecell are changed. The centralchannel (nebulizer) gas then en-ters from one end of the fur-nace, passes through the tube,and exits out the other end. Thesample-dosing hole is then au-tomatically closed, usually bymeans of a graphite tip, to en-sure no analyte vapors escape.After this gas flow pattern hasbeen established, the tempera-ture of the graphite tube isramped up very quickly, vapor-izing the residual componentsof the sample. The vaporizedanalytes either recondense inthe rapidly moving gas streamor remain in the vapor phase.These particulates and vaporsare then transported to the ICPin the carrier gas where they areionized by the ICP for analysisin the mass spectrometer.

Another benefit of decou-pling the sampling and ioniza-tion processes is the opportu-nity for chemical modificationof the sample. The graphite fur-nace itself can serve as a high-temperature reaction vesselwhere the chemical nature ofcompounds within it can be al-tered. In a manner similar to

filament during the heatingcycle. The analyte vapor recon-denses in the carrier gas and isthen swept into the plasma forionization.

One of the attractive charac-teristics of ETV for ICP-MS isthat the vaporization and ioniza-tion steps are carried out sepa-rately, which allows for the opti-mization of each process. This isparticularly true when a heatedgraphite tube is used as the va-porization device, because theanalyst typically has more con-trol of the heating process and,as a result, can modify the sam-ple by means of a very precisethermal program before it is in-troduced to the ICP for ioniza-tion. By boiling off and sweepingthe solvent and volatile matrixcomponents out of the graphitetube, spectral interferences aris-ing from the sample matrix canbe reduced or eliminated. TheETV sampling process consistsof six discrete stages: sample in-troduction, drying, charring(matrix removal), vaporization,condensation, and transport.Once the sample has been intro-duced, the graphite tube is

Sampling accessories are considered critical to enhance the practical ca-pabilities of inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS);since their development more than 10 years ago, they have proved to beinvaluable for difficult, real-world applications. In the first part of thetutorial on sampling accessories (1), we looked at laser ablation andflow injection techniques. In this second installment, we will focus onthree other important sampling approaches: electrothermal vaporiza-tion, desolvation systems, and chromatographic separation devices.


Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MSPart XIV: Sampling Accessories, Part II

Robert Thomas

E


[AUTHOR: The refer-ence to Part 1 hasbeen added, and thefollowing referencesrenumbered. Pleasecheck to make sureall callouts are up-dated.]]


Tutorial

hance matrix removal and increase ele-mental sensitivity (3). An alternate gas

such as oxygen may also be introducedinto the sample cell to aid in the char-ring of the carbon in organic matricessuch as biological or petrochemicalsamples. Here the organically boundcarbon reacts with the oxygen gas toproduce carbon dioxide, which is thenvented from the system. A typical ETVsampling device, showing the twomajor steps of sample pretreatment(drying and ashing) and vaporizationinto the plasma, is shown schematicallyin Figure 1.

During the past 15 years, ETV sam-pling for ICP-MS has mainly been usedfor the analysis of complex matrices in-cluding geological materials (4), biolog-ical fluids (5), seawater (6), and coalslurries (7), which have proven difficultor impossible by conventional nebuliza-tion. By removal of the matrix compo-nents, the potential for severe spectraland matrix-induced interferences isdramatically reduced. Even thoughETV-ICP-MS was initially applied tothe analysis of very small sample vol-umes, the advent of low-flow nebulizershas mainly precluded its use for thistype of work.

An example of the benefit of ETVsampling is in the analysis of samplescontaining high concentrations of min-eral acids such as hydrochloric, nitric,and sulfuric acids. Besides physicallysuppressing analyte signals, these acidsgenerate massive polyatomic spectraloverlaps that interfere with many ana-lytes, including arsenic, vanadium, iorn,potassium, silicon, zinc, and titanium.By carefully removing the matrix com-ponents with the ETV device, the deter-mination of these elements becomesrelatively straightforward. Figure 2shows a spectral display in the time do-main for 50 pg spikes of a selectedgroup of elements in concentrated hy-drochloric acid (37% w/w) using agraphite furnace-based ETV-ICP-MS(8). It can be seen in particular thatgood sensitivity is obtained for 39K, 51V,56Fe, and 75As, which would have beenvirtually impossible by direct aspirationbecause of spectral overlaps from39ArH, 35Cl16O, 40Ar16O, and 40Ar35Cl, re-spectively. The removal of the chlorideand water from the matrix translates

that used in AA, chemical modifiers canchange the volatility of species to en-

Figure 1. A graphite furnace ETV sampling device for ICP-MS, showing the two distinct steps of (a)sample pretreatment and (b) vaporization into the plasma. [[AUTHOR: Correct for a and b ?]]

(a)

Max poweroptical sensor

Internalgas

Graphitetube

Internalgas

Carriergas

External gas

Graphite sealing probe

Samplingvalve

ICP-MS ETV

(b)

Max poweroptical sensor

Internalgas

Internalgas

Carriergas

External gasSamplingvalve

ICP-MS ETV

Figure 2. A temporal display of 50 pg of magnesium, antimony, arsenic, iron, vanadium, andmolybdenum in 37% hydrochloric acid by ETV-ICP-MS.

24Mg

51V

56Fe

75As

48Mo

121Sb

Sb

Mg

Fe

V

As

Mo

300

250

200

150

100

50

00.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Time (s)

Ions

/s (�

103 )


Tutorial

into parts-per-trillion detection limitsdirectly in 37% hydrochloric acid, asshown in Table I.

Figure 2 also shows that the elementsare vaporized off the graphite tube inthe order of their boiling points. Inother words, magnesium, which is themost volatile, is driven off first, whilevanadium and molybdenum, which arethe most refractory, come off last. How-ever, even though they emerge at differ-ent times, the complete transient eventlasts <3 s. This physical time limitation,imposed by the duration of the tran-sient signal, makes it imperative that allisotopes of interest be measured underthe highest signal-to-noise conditionsthroughout the entire event. The rapidnature of the transient also limits theusefulness of ETV sampling for routinemultielement analysis because realisti-cally only a small number of elementscan be quantified with good accuracyand precision in <3 s. In addition, thedevelopment of low flow nebulizers, de-solvation devices, and collision celltechnology has meant that rapid multi-element analysis can now be carried outon difficult samples without the needfor ETV sample introduction.

Desolvation DevicesDesolvation devices are mainly used inICP-MS to reduce the amount of sol-vent entering the plasma. With organicsamples, desolvation is absolutely criti-cal because most volatile solvents wouldextinguish the plasma if they weren’t re-moved or at least significantly reduced.However, desolvation of all types ofsamples can be very useful because it

cause of its more efficient aerosol gen-eration. However, this was not such anobvious benefit for ICP-MS becausemore matrix was entering the systemcompared with a conventional nebu-lizer, increasing the potential for signaldrift, matrix suppression, and spectralinterferences. This was not such a majorproblem for simple aqueous samples,but was problematic for real-world ma-trices. The elements that showed themost improvement were the ones thatbenefited from lower solvent-basedspectral interferences. Unfortunately,many of the other elements exhibitedhigher background levels and, as a re-sult, showed no significant improve-ment in detection limit. In addition, be-cause of the increased amount ofmatrix entering the mass spectrometer,it usually necessitated the need forlarger dilutions of the sample, whichagain negated the benefit of using anUSN with ICP-MS. This limitation ledto the development of an ultrasonicnebulizer fitted with a membrane des-olvator — in addition to the conven-tional desolvation system. This designvirtually removed all the solvent fromthe sample, which dramatically im-proved detection limits for a large num-ber of the problematic elements andalso lowered oxide levels by at least anorder of magnitude (11).

The principle of aerosol generationusing an ultrasonic nebulizer is basedon a sample being pumped onto aquartz plate of a piezo-electric trans-ducer. Electrical energy of 1–2 MHz fre-quency is coupled to the transducer,which causes it to vibrate at high fre-quency. These vibrations disperse thesample into a fine droplet aerosol,which is carried in a stream of argon.With a conventional ultrasonic nebu-lizer, the aerosol is passed through aheating tube and a cooling chamber,where most of the sample solvent is re-moved as a condensate before it entersthe plasma. If a membrane desolvationsystem is fitted to the ultrasonic nebu-lizer, it is positioned after the coolingunit. The sample aerosol enters the

reduces the severity of the sol-vent-induced spectral interfer-ences like oxides, hydroxides, andargon/solvent-based polyatomicsthat are common in ICP-MS. Themost common desolvation sys-tems used today include:● Water-cooled spray chambers● Peltier-cooled spray chambers● Ultrasonic nebulizers (USN)

with water/Peltier coolers● Ultrasonic nebulizers (USN)

with membrane desolvation● Microconcentric nebulizers

(MCN) with membrane desol-vation.Water- and/or Peltier- (thermo

electric) cooled spray chambersare standard on a number ofcommercial instruments. Theyare usually used with conven-tional or low flow pneumatic neb-ulizers to reduce the amount ofsolvent entering the plasma. Thishas the effect of minimizingsolvent-based spectral interfer-ences formed in the plasma, andcan also help to reduce the effectsof a nebulizer-flow–induced sec-ondary discharge at the interfaceof the plasma with the samplercone. With some organic samples,it has proved to be very beneficialto cool the spray chamber to �10to �20 °C (with an ethylene gly-col mix) in addition to adding asmall amount of oxygen into thenebulizer gas flow. This has theeffect of reducing the amount oforganic solvent entering the inter-face, which is beneficial in elimi-nating the build-up of carbon de-posits on the sampler cone orificeand also minimizing the prob-lematic carbon-based spectralinterferences (9).

Ultrasonic nebulization wasfirst developed in the late 1980sfor use with ICP–optical emissionspectroscopy (OES) (10). Itsmajor benefit was that it offeredan approximately 10–20� im-provement in detection limits be-

Table I. Detection limits forpotassium, vanadium, iron, andarsenic in 37% hydrochloricacid by ETV-ICP-MS.Element DL (ppt)39K 17051V 5056Fe 2075As 40


Tutorial

membrane desolvator, where the re-maining solvent vapor passes throughthe walls of a tubular microporus PTFEmembrane. A flow of argon gas re-moves the volatile vapor from the exte-rior of the membrane, while the analyteaerosol remains inside the tube and iscarried into the plasma for ionization.Figure 3 shows a schematic of an ultra-sonic nebulizer, and Figure 4 shows theprinciples of membrane desolvation.

For ICP-MS, the system is best oper-ated with both desolvation stages work-ing, although for less demanding ICP-OES analysis, the membrane stage canbe by-passed if required. The power of

the system when coupled to an ICPmass spectrometer can be seen in TableII, which compares the sensitivity(counts per second [cps]) and signal-to-background of a membrane desolva-tion USN with a conventional crossflownebulizer for three classic solvent-basedpolyatomic interferences, 12C16O2 on44Ca, 40Ar16O on 56Fe, and 40Ar16OH on57Fe, using a quadrupole ICP-MS sys-tem. The sensitivity for the analyte iso-topes are all background subtracted.

It can be seen that for all three ana-lyte isotopes, the net signal to back-ground ratio is significantly better withthe membrane ultrasonic nebulizerthan with the crossflow design, which isa direct impact of the reduction of thesolvent-related spectral backgroundlevels. Even though this approach worksequally well and sometimes better whenanalyzing organic samples, it does notwork for analytes that are bound to anorganic molecule. The high volatility ofcertain types of organometallic speciesmeans that they stand a very goodchance of passing through the microp-orus teflon membrane and never mak-

ing it into the ICP-MS. For this reason,caution must be used when using amembrane desolvation system for theanalysis of organic samples.

A variation of the membrane desol-vation system is with a microconcentricnebulizer in place of the ultrasonic neb-ulizer. A schematic of this design isshown in Figure 5.

The benefit of this approach is notonly the reduction in solvent-relatedspectral interferences with the mem-brane desolvation system, but also ad-vantage can be taken of the microcon-centric nebulizer’s ability to aspiratevery low sample volumes (typically20–100 �L). This can be particularlyuseful when sample volume is limitedlike in vapor phase decomposition(VPD) analysis of silicon wafers. Theproblem with this kind of demandingwork is that there is typically only 500�L of sample available, which makes itextremely difficult using a traditionallow-flow nebulizer because it requiresthe use of both cool and normal plasmaconditions to carry out a complete mul-tielement analysis. By using an MCNwith a membrane desolvation system,the full suite of elements — includingthe notoriously difficult iron, potas-sium, and calcium — can be deter-mined on 500 �L of sample using oneset of normal plasma conditions (12).

Low flow nebulizers were describedin greater detail in Part II of this series.The most common ones used in ICP-MS are based on the microconcentricdesign, which operate at 20–100�L/min. Besides being ideal for small sam-ple volumes, the major benefit is thatless matrix is entering the mass spec-

Figure 3. Schematic of an ultrasonic nebulizerfitted with a membrane desolvation system.

Heatertube

MembranedesolvatorSweep

gas out

Condenser

DrainTransducer

Argon sweep gas in

Argon

Sample inDrainQuartz

plate

ICP

Figure 5. Schematic of a microconcentricnebulizer fitted with a membrane desolvationsystem.

Microconcentric nebulizer

Heated membranedesolvator

Nebulizer Gas

NitrogenSample

Heated PTFESweep gas in

Sweep gas out

ToICP-MS

Figure 4. Principles of membrane desolvation.

Heated tube

Heatedoutertube

PTFE membraneArgon sweep gas out

Argon sweepgas in

Aerosolin

Solventout

PTFEmembrane

End-on view

ToICP

Table II. Comparison of sensitivity and signal/background ratios for three isotopes.Crossflow Membrane

Isotope/ Mass nebulizer Net signal/ Desolvation Net signal/interference (amu) (cps) BG USN (cps) BG

44Ca (25 ppb) 2300 20,80012C16O2 44 7640 0.3 1730 1256Fe (10 ppb) 95,400 262,00040Ar16O 56 868,000 0.1 8200 3257Fe (10 ppb) 2590 640040Ar16OH 57 5300 0.5 200


Tutorial

trometer, which means that there is lesschance of sample-induced long-termdrift. In addition, most low-flow nebu-lizers use chemically inert plastic capil-laries, which makes them well suited forthe analysis of highly corrosive chemi-cals. This kind of flexibility has madelow-flow nebulizers very popular, par-ticularly in the semiconductor industrywhere it is essential to analyze high-pu-rity acids using sample introductionsystems free of sources of contamina-tion (13).

Chromatographic SeparationDevicesICP-MS has gained popularity of theyears, based mainly on its ability to rap-idly quantitate ultratrace metal contam-ination levels. However, in its basic de-sign, ICP-MS cannot reveal anythingabout the metal’s oxidation state, alky-lated form or how it is bound to a bio-molecule. The desire to understand inwhat form or species an element exists

led researchers to investigate the combi-nation of chromatographic separationdevices with ICP-MS. The ICP massspectrometer becomes a very sensitivedetector for trace element speciationstudies when coupled with a chromato-graphic technique like high perform-ance liquid chromatography (HPLC),ion chromatography (IC), gas chro-matography (GC), and capillary elec-trophoresis (CE). In these hybrid tech-niques, element species are separatedbased on their chromatographic reten-tion/mobility times and theneluted/passed into the ICP mass spec-trometer for detection (14). The inten-sity of the eluted peaks are then dis-played for each isotopic mass of interestin the time domain as shown in Figure6, which shows a typical chromatogramfor a selected group of masses between60 and 75 amu.

There is no question that the ex-tremely low detection capability of ICP-MS has allowed researchers in the envi-

ronmental, biomedical, geochemical,and nutritional fields to gain a muchbetter insight into the impact of differ-ent elemental species on us and our en-vironment — something that wouldnot have been possible 10–15 years ago.The majority of trace element specia-tion studies being carried out today, canbe broken down into three major cate-gories:● Those involving redox systems, wherethe oxidation state of a metal canchange. For example, hexavalentchromium, Cr(VI), is a powerful oxi-dant and extremely toxic, but in soilsand water systems, it reacts with or-ganic matter to form trivalentchromium, Cr(III), which is the morecommon form of the element and is anessential micronutrient for plants andanimals (15)● Another important class is alkylatedforms of the metal. Very often the natu-ral form of an element can be toxic,while its alkylated form is relativelyharmless — or vice versa. A good exam-ple of this is the element arsenic. Inor-ganic forms of the element like As(III)and As(V) are toxic, whereas many ofits alkylated forms, such asmonomethylarsonic acid (MMA) anddimethylarsonic acid (DMA), are rela-tively innocuous (16)● An area being investigated more andmore is biomolecules. For example, inanimal studies, activity and mobility ofan innocuous arsenic-based growthpromoter is determined by studying itsmetabolic impact and excretion charac-teristics. Measurement of the biochemi-cal form of arsenic is crucial to know itsgrowth potential (17).

Table III represents a small cross sec-tion of speciation work that has beencarried out by chromatography tech-niques coupled to ICP-MS in thesethree major categories.

As mentioned previously, there is alarge body of application work in thepublic domain that has investigated theuse of different chromatographic sepa-ration devices, such as LC (18, 19), IC(20), GC (21, 22), and CE (23, 24) withICP-MS. The area that is probably get-

Figure 6. A typical chromatogram generated by a liquid chromatograph coupled to an ICP massspectrometer, showing a temporal display of intensity against mass.

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0500 600 700 800

75

70

65

60

Mas

s (m

/z)

Time (s)

Coun

ts

Table III. Some elemental species that have been studied byresearchers using chromatographic separation devices coupled toICP-MS.

Redox systems Alkylated forms BiomoleculesSe(IV)/Se(VI) Methyl — Hg, Ge, Sn, Pb, Organo — As,

As, Sb,Se, Te, Zn, Cd, Cr Se, CdAs(III)/As(V) Ethyl — Pb, Hg Metallo-porphyrinesSn(II)/Sn(IV) Butyl — Sn Metallo-proteinsCr(III)/Cr(VI) Phenyl — Sn Metallo-drugsFe(II)/Fe(III) Cyclohexyl — Sn Metallo-enzymes


Tutorial

ting the most attention is the couplingof HPLC with ICP-MS. By using eitheradsorption, ion-exchange, gel perme-ation, or normal- or reversed-phasechromatography configurations, valu-able elemental speciation informationcan be derived from a sample. Let’s takea look at one of these applications —the determination of different forms ofinorganic arsenic in soil, using ion-ex-change HPLC coupled to ICP-MS, toget a better understanding of how thetechnique works.

Arsenic toxicity depends directly onthe chemical form of the arsenic. In itsinorganic form, arsenic is highly toxic,while many of its organic forms are rel-atively harmless. Inorganic species ofarsenic that are of toxological interestare the trivalent form (As[III]), such asarsenious acid, H3AsO3 and its arsenitesalts; the pentavalent form (As[V]),such as arsenic acid, H3AsO5, and its ar-senate salts; and arsine (AsH3), a poi-sonous, unstable gas used in the manu-facture of semiconductor devices.Arsenic is introduced into the environ-ment and ecosystems from naturalsources by volcanic activity and theweathering of minerals, and also from

anthropogenic sources, such as oresmelting, coal burning, industrial dis-charge, and pesticide use. The ratio ofnatural arsenic to anthropogenic ar-senic is approximately 60:40.

A recent study investigated a poten-tial arsenic contamination of the soil inand around an industrial site in Europe.Soil in a field near the factory in ques-tion was sampled, as well as soil insidethe factory grounds. The soil was dried,weighed, extracted with water, and fil-tered. This careful, gentle extractionprocedure was used to avoid disturbingthe distribution of arsenic species origi-nally present in the sample — an im-portant consideration in speciationstudies. A 10-mL sample was injectedonto an amine-based, anion-exchangeresin, where the different oxidationstates of arsenic in soil were chromato-graphically extracted from the matrixand separated using a standard LCpump. The matrix components passedstraight through the column, whereasthe arsenic species were retained andthen isocratically eluted into the nebu-lizer of the ICP mass spectrometerusing 5 mM ammonium malonate. Thearsenic species were then detected and

quantified by running the instrumentin the single-ion monitoring mode, setat mass 75 — the only isotope for ar-senic. Figure 7 shows that both As(III)and As(V) have been eluted off the col-umn in less than three minutes usingthis HPLC-ICP-MS set-up. The chro-matogram also shows that both speciesare approximately three orders of mag-nitude lower in the soil sample from thesurrounding field, compared to the soilsample inside the factory grounds. Al-though the arsenic does not exceed av-erage global soil levels, it is a clear indi-cation that the factory is a source ofarsenic contamination.

It is worth mentioning that for somereversed-phase HPLC separations, gra-dient elution of the analyte species withmixtures of organic solvents likemethanol might have to be used. If thisis a requirement, consideration must begiven to the fact that large amounts oforganic solvent will extinguish theplasma (25), so introduction of the elu-ent into the ICP mass spectrometercannot be carried out using a conven-tional nebulization. For this reason,special sample introduction systems likerefrigerated spray chambers (26) or de-solvation systems (27) have to be used,in addition to small amounts of oxygenin the sample aerosol flow to stop thebuild-up of carbon deposits on thesampler cone. Other approaches, suchas direct injection nebulization (DIN)(28), have been used to introduce thesample eluent into the ICP-MS, but un-fortunately have not gained widespreadacceptance because of usability issues.DIN was very popular when first devel-oped in the early 1990s because of itsability to handle small sample volumesand its low memory characteristics.However, it has been replaced by othersampling techniques and, as a result,appears to have limited commercialviability.

References1. Spectroscopy 17(11), 26–33 (2002).2. C.J. Park, J.C. Van Loon, P. Arrowsmith,

and J.B. French, Anal. Chem. 59,2191–2196 (1987).

Figure 7. HPLC-ICP-MS chromatogram showing comparison of As(III) and As(V) levels in twodifferent soil samples in and around an industrial site.

As (V)

Uncontaminated soil (surrounding fields)

Contaminated soil(factory grounds)

As (III)

As (III) : 0.002 �g/gAs (V) : 0.023 �g/g

0 2 4

Time (min)

Inte

nsity

As (V)

As (III) As (III) : 1.8 �g/gAs (V) : 4.2 �g/g

0 3 6

Time (min)

Inte

nsity


Tutorial

3. R.D. Ediger and S.A. Beres, Spec-trochimica Acta 47B, 907 (1992).

4. C.J. Park and G.E.M. Hall, J. Anal. At.Spectrom. 2, 473-480 (1987).

5. C.J. Park and J.C. Van Loon, Trace Ele-ments in Medicine 7, 103 (1990).

6. G. Chapple and J.P. Byrne, J. Anal. At.Spectrom. 11, 549–553, (1996).

7. U. Voellkopf, M. Paul, and E.R. Denoyer,Fresenius‘ J. Anal. Chem. 342, 917–923(1992).

8. S.A. Beres, E.R. Denoyer, R. Thomas,and P. Bruckner, Spectroscopy (9)1,20–26 (1994).

9. F. McElroy, A. Mennito, E. Debrah, andR. Thomas, Spectroscopy 13(2), 42–53(1998).

10. K.W. Olson, W.J. Haas Jr., and V.A. Fas-sel, Anal. Chem. 49, 4, 632–637,(1977).

11. J. Kunze, S. Koelling, M. Reich, and M.A.Wimmer, Atom. Spectrosc. 19, 5(1998).

12. G. Settembre and E. Debrah, Micro(June, 1998).

13. R.A. Aleksejczyk and D. Gibilisco, Micro(September, 1997).

14. R. Lobinski, I.R. Pereiro, H. Chassaigne,A. Wasik, and J. Szpunar, J. Anal. Atom.Spectrom. 13, 860–867 (1998).

15. A.G. Cox and C.W. McLeod, Mikrochim-ica Acta 109, 161–164, (1992).

16. S. Branch, L. Ebdon, and P. O’Neill, J.Anal. Atom. Spectrom. 9, 33–37(1994).

17. J.R. Dean, L. Ebdon, M.E. Foulkes, H.M.Crews, and R.C. Massey, J. Anal. Atom.Spectrom. 9, 615–618 (1994).

18. N.P. Vela and J.A. Caruso, J. Anal. Atom.Spectrom. 8, 787 (1993).

19. S. Caroli, F. La Torre, F. Petrucci, and N.Violante, Environ: Science and PollutionResearch (1)4, 205–208 (1994).

20. J.I. Garcia-Alonso, A. Sanz-Medel, and L.Ebdon, Analytica Chimica Acta 283,261–271 (1993).

21. A.W. Kim, M.E. Foulkes, L. Ebdon, S.J.Hill, R.L. Patience, A.G. Barwise, and S.J.Rowland, J. Anal. Atom. Spectrom. 7,1147–1149 (1992).

22. H. Hintelmann, R.D. Evans, and J.Y. Vil-leneuve, J. Anal. Atom. Spectrom. 10,619–624 (1995).

23. J.W. Olesik, K.K. Thaxton, J.A. Kinzer,and E.J. Grunwald, paper given at theWinter Conference on Plasma Spectro-chemistry, T8, [[AUTHOR: What does T8mean? What is the title of the paper? Con-ference sponsor, and city of headquarters?Location of conference that year?]](1998).

24. J. Miller-Ihli, paper given at the WinterConference on Plasma Spectrochem-istry, T10, [[AUTHOR: What does T10

mean? What is the title of the paper?]](1998).

25. J. Szpunar, H. Chassaigne, O.F.X.Donard, J. Bettmer, and R. Lobinski, Ap-plications of ICP-MS, ed. G. Hollandand S. Tanner, Royal Society of Chem-istry, [[AUTHOR: Location of headquar-ters?]] (1997).

26. A. Al-Rashdan, D. Heitkemper, and J.A.Caruso, J. Chromatogr. Sciences 29, 98(1996).

27. H. Ding, L.K. Olson, and J.A. Caruso,Spectrochimica Acta, Part B, 51, 1801(1996).

28. S.C.K. Shum, R. Nedderden, and R.S.Houk, Analyst, 117, 577 (1992). ■

A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MS Guide to ICP-MS all Tutorial… · a novice reader. There is no...

Documents

Transcript of A Beginner’s Guide to ICP-MS Guide to ICP-MS all Tutorial… · a novice reader. There is no...