Talk:Electrospray ionization

message: How does this sentence make sense ("The electrospray ionization technique was first reported by Masamichi Yamashita and John Fenn in 1984."), when it is clearly later stated that actually Dole already published his research on "Molecular Beams of Macroions" in 1968 and clearly called the ionization technique an electrospray?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.47.221 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The images from Duft et al.'s papers would be great to show the process of a droplet's "explosion."134.253.26.6 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: At >2000 peer reviewed papers a year, it would indeed get messy134.253.26.6 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added overview diagram Egmason (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: I don't see any issues with the linking to Dr. Bokman's dissertation. We are not violating coi, npov or link. It is selective and useful not random or exhaustive, represents scientific consensus, and was not added by Dr. Bokman or any of his associates. I personally would respect a request by Dr. Bokman to not link to his publicly available dissertation if he requests that we not, but there is no rule preventing it being linked to here. Perhaps there may be a better choice of external link but this one is not a bad choice.--Nick Y. 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to thesis 

message: I see ESI-MS much more than ES-MS. The former makes more sense as an abbreviation for electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. --Kkmurray 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I added the ES-MS and related abbreviations because I found them in a paper and wasn't certain what they meant. I usually find that Wikipedia is excellent for finding a quick answer to the meaning of an acronym, but it didn't have this one yet. So, after I found what it meant, I added it. I think both ES-MS and ESI-MS should be mentioned, as both are in use. A search in Google books gives hundreds of hits for all these abbreviations, although ESI-MS seems to be the most common indeed. --Itub 14:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both is best. Google seems to like "ESI-MS" over " ES-MS" but both are clearly used. --Kkmurray 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Electrospray is used as ion source for mass spectrometry, so ESI-MS makes perfect sense. ES-MS... not really. I don't think both ESI-MS and ES-MS should be featured here as acceptable abbreviations. Clearly, the one that doesn't make much sense is used less. Mgnelu (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in that that ESI-MS sounds better to me than ES-MS. On the other hand fast atom bombardment (FAB) is used as ion source for mass spectrometry, but no one uses "FABI-MS" (or ICPI-MS, etc.) --Kkmurray (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 199 thousand hits for ICP-MS? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I assume that people started using FAB and ICP without questioning whether adding an "I" would make sense or not. And it is good that others payed attention and didn't start using another abbreviation - at least there is no confusion. What do you think about the use of MALD-MS? I know, I know, the ratio is much smaller than in the case of ES-MS, but ES-MS makes as much sense as MALD-MS. Having two acronym for the same thing can get confusing. At least we could encourage the use of the one that makes more sense. Mgnelu (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's somewhat arbitrary (unfortunately). I remember using MALD and MALDI interchangeably in the early 90's and now the former seems completely wrong. I think that we're left with general consensus aided by counting Google hits (etc). --Kkmurray (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ES-MS vs. ESI-MS 

message: I intend to remove this section. Most of the text would go into the "Ionization Mechanism" section, except the discussion of the charged droplets formation, which would be replaced by a reference to "Electrospray". Mgnelu (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How it works

message: I haven't heard of "static nanospray" - does that imply the existence of a "dynamic nanospray"? Fraction collection during liquid chromatography followed by off-line analysis (by any method) is not an application of electrosprays. It could be mentioned in the topic dedicated to liquid chromatography, but I don't think it belongs here. Any other opinions? Mgnelu (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't heard of it either, but it apparently means nanospray not connected to a separation (e.g. ). It should be defined in the section on nanospray (once someone writes that section). --Kkmurray (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think it should be defined? A Google search for "static nanospray" returns only 490 hits, it is clearly not widely used. I wonder if those who used this unfortunate expression ever thought how meaningless it was. Mgnelu (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also synonymous with "direct infusion nanospray"--Nick Y. (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what makes them synonymous. "Static" is quite a dumb way of saying "direct infusion". Mgnelu (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's static because there is no pump forcing the liquid through the capillary. You load the tip with solution and it will spray for a long time with just the voltage driving the fluid flow. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The liquid is not static whether you pump it or not. Maybe "passive" would better describe that the liquid is not pumped.Mgnelu (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: There is a subtle difference between the two but the end result is the same. I agree that the naming is bad but it is what it is. To clarify the difference: in "static nanospray" the liquid sample is not pumped from behind whereas "direct infusion nanospray" is pumped from behind. They both move the sample forward and spray it out the tip.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I get the "subtle difference". At some point somebody wondered: "What buzzword can I come up with? Static would sound kinda scientific." It is not what it is because the term does not have a large circulation yet. On the other hand, if we keep it in Wikipedia it will get advertised more than it deserves. If we accept all the garbage people come up with, soon we start a Wikipedia page for bio-electrosprays. Mgnelu (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Static nanospray mass spectrometry

message: As I understand, this article discusses the use of electrospray as ionization source for mass spectrometry. Certain models of commercial air purifiers use electrosprays to ionize airborne particles and remove them from the air, but they are certainly not an application of electrospray ionization in the context of this article. This application seems more appropriate in the context of electrospray. Plus, the reference added in this section is obviously different than the others, I would say in conflict with WP:ADVERT. Mgnelu (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what LiquidIon means - it sounds like a(nother) commercial nonsense. I still believe that this paragraph is out of place here and suggest to be moved to electrospray or air purifier. Even if the reference is not an advertisement, I am sure you noticed that all the other references point to scientific articles, published in prestigious journals. A charity webpage that lists many types of air purifiers does not constitute a good reference especially in the context of electrospray ionization for mass spectrometry (or in the context of electrospray for that matter). Mgnelu (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Air purifiers 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Kkmurray, I have serious doubts that the reference you added is relevant in the context. Fenn did have very important contributions to electrospray ionization, but he did not discover the liquid dispersion into a fine aerosol by electrosprays and his PNAS paper does not bring anything new in this regard. There are papers that don't deserve the visibility that comes with a reference in wikipedia. I think we should be conservative and cite established papers, with general acceptance in the community. IMHO, the new papers should be scrutinized in the scientific literature before being referenced in wikipedia. Mgnelu (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a better reference covering recent work elucidating the electrospray ionization mechanism, feel free to swap it. I don't think that the current references in the mechanism section (Dole's 1968 and Iribarne and Thompson's 1976 papers) are sufficient for a discussion of the current understanding of the electrospray mechanism.  --Kkmurray (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNAS reference 

message: I took some photos recently of an ESI source in action.  Perhaps one of these photos might be a better illustration of the topics discussed here?  TheTweaker (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of electrospray

message: I am really puzzled by the last section of Ionization mechanism:
"The analytes are sometimes involved in electrochemical processes, leading to shifts of the corresponding peaks in the mass spectrum."
What does this sentence mean? It means nothing to me, and I use ESI daily. The link from "electrochemical processes" takes you to a random point in the middle of the general electrospray page.
149.155.96.6 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Shifts in mass due to chemical reaction? Electrochemical processes (e.g. ) should get their own section anyway. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange sentence, what does this mean? (ionization mechanism) 

message: I have added some extra depth in places...hope you don't mind too much!
I think these are some important points.
I also plan to expand on the LC-MS application section and possibly add LC-MS/MS if you wouldn't mind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCoopsflamethrower (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made some edits... 

message: Desorption electrospray ionization seems to be a variant of electrospray ionization in which the sample is a (solid) surface while an electrospray gun is used to desorb and ionize small fractions of analytes present in/on it. The way the sample is delivered is slightly different than in the standard electrospray ionization but the concept seems to be too similar to justify separation into two articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should not be a merge and am removing the tags. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Desorption electrospray ionization into Electrospray ionization 

message: merge to general topic �  DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - "Electrostatic spray ionization" is a form of pulsed electrospray and should be covered in the electrospray article. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Oppose - Many of the other ambient methods have their own pages, each of which is (arguably) independently notable. So, these include Desorption electrospray ionization, Extractive electrospray ionization, electrospray laser desorption ionization, matrix-assisted laser desorption electrospray ionization and laser ablation electrospray ionization in addition to Electrostatic Spray Ionization. So, either they should all be merge, or none should be merged; I lean towards the latter on the grounds that there is enough to discuss that combining onto one page would be unwieldy. Klbrain (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Electrostatic Spray Ionization]] 

message: The contactless atmospheric pressure ionization stub is another variant of electrospray ionization that should be covered in the main electrospray ionization article. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this was done some time ago. Klbrain (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge with contactless atmospheric pressure ionization

message: I think intelligent people wrote it - but for average people it is all quite complicated.
I think it would be better if these large articles would be split-up a bit more; introduce the topics, perhaps
split it into subpages or something (like history gets a separate article or so). As it is, I was trying to find
a simple answer how the charge is generated/measured, and please ... look at how CONVOLUTED the article is. It's
not simple at all. Wikipedia is actually becoming worse in the last years compared to other websites that are
shorter and simpler, and to the point - often written for pupils. Wikipedia needs to focus on BOTH simplicity,
but also accuracy and details; not on the expense of simplicity though. We don't want wikipedia to become
only usable for the super-braineys. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is difficult to understand 

message: Never edited Wikipedia before so hoping someone else can help out.
Under Ionization mechanism, Rayleigh limit leads to Angular resolution. This isn't helpful and is unrelated to the way the term is used here.
Ideally I  think this would go to something like "Rayleigh Limit of Charge" (which doesn't exist) or some explanation of the mechanism of coulomb explosions/fission  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.138.204 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link change