Addition of fast gas chromatography to selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry for analysis of individual monoterpenes in mixtures

Lacko, Michal; Wang, Nijing; Sovová, Kristýna; Pásztor, Pavel; Španěl, Patrik

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4965-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4965-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4965-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 9

Research article

|

13 Sep 2019

Research article |

| 13 Sep 2019

Addition of fast gas chromatography to selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry for analysis of individual monoterpenes in mixtures

Michal Lacko, Nijing Wang, Kristýna Sovová, Pavel Pásztor, and Patrik Španěl

Download

Final revised paper (published on 13 Sep 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Mar 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Couple of technical questions', Markus Metsälä, 08 Apr 2019
- AC1: 'Responses to technical questions', Patrik Španěl, 15 May 2019
RC1: 'Review of AMT-2019-12', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 Apr 2019
- AC4: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #3', Patrik Španěl, 15 May 2019
RC2: 'Referee Comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2019
- AC3: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Patrik Španěl, 15 May 2019
RC3: 'Interactive comment on Addition of fast GC to SIFT-MS for separation and analysis of monoterpene isomers', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 May 2019
- AC2: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Patrik Španěl, 15 May 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Patrik Španěl on behalf of the Authors (18 Jun 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Jun 2019) by Yoshiteru Iinuma

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (15 Jul 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors did a decent job trying to incorporate the suggested comments from the reviewers. However, the English in the manuscript should be improved and I strongly recommend a language service to support the manuscript before final publication. Certain minor comments should also be addressed regarding the structure of the paper. A few examples of English mistakes are captured in the technical notes section below.

Specific comments
In section 4.4 the authors suggest that for the tree samples only MTX-Volatiles column was used but in the same section a discussion on the comparison of the two columns is performed that is confusing. Also, I consider that this section is lucking further discussion by the authors regarding its comparison to the laboratory results and the uncertainties. For example, the complexity of the tree samples with hexenal should be part of this section and not the section “comparison to other studies”.
Discussion of the LOD and calibrations is currently presented in section 4.5. I would consider this information to be a section of its own at the beginning of the manuscript and not the end. Still, the comparison of the LOD and calibrations to other work should stay at the comparison section as is.
Technical comments
Page 7, line 5: change to “Typical count rate of the reagent ions…”.
Page 7, line 30: change to “… by the presence…”
Page 7, line 32: change to “… that resulted in the decrease of the product…”
Page 7, line 33: change to “… reagent…” and correct throughout the manuscript
Page 8, line 1: change “or” to “and”
Page 9, line 12: change “by” to “following”
Page 9, line 13: change “was” to “were”
Page 10, line 16: change “Table 2” to “Table 2, and further supported by Figure S2”
Page 14, line 18: change “he is…”
Page 14, line 18: change to “…GC…”
Page 14, line 23: change to “… and 0.40 respectively…”
Page 14, line 23: add standard deviation of values as  XX
Page 14, line 25: rephrase sentence “Do dynamic…”
Page 15, line 31: change to “according to the expected…”
Page 15, line 32: change to “… compared…”
Page 22, line 32: change to “… compared…”
Page 23, line 18: this is not quantitative analysis when a separation is not possible. Please rephrase.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (23 Jul 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (23 Jul 2019) by Yoshiteru Iinuma

AR by Patrik Španěl on behalf of the Authors (30 Jul 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (13 Aug 2019) by Yoshiteru Iinuma

AR by Patrik Španěl on behalf of the Authors (13 Aug 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The soft chemical ionization analytical technique of selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry, SIFT-MS, was enhanced by a fast GC pre-separation unit to identify individual isomers. Experiments were carried out with two GC columns, MXT-1 and MXT-Volatiles, using two reagent ions, H₃O⁺ and NO⁺, on monoterpene samples (an artificial mixture and coniferous needles). Analyses of product ion ratios allowed for quantification of multiple monoterpenes in partially separated chromatograms.