https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27030985
Jörg Radnik 1, Vasile-Dan Hodoroaba 1, Harald Jungnickel 2, Jutta Tentschert 2, Andreas Luch 2, Vanessa Sogne 3, Florian Meier 3, Loïc Burr 4, David Schmid 4, Christoph Schlager 5, Tae Hyun Yoon 6,7, Ruud Peters 8, Sophie M. Briffa 9 and Eugenia Valsami-Jones 9
1 Division 6.1, Federal Institute for Material Testing and Research (BAM), Unter den Eichen 44–46, 12203 Berlin, Germany;
2 Department of Chemical & Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8–10, 10589 Berlin, Germany;
3 Postnova Analytics GmbH, Rankine-Strasse 1, 86899 Landsberg, Germany;
4 Centre Suisse d’Electronique et de Microtechnique (CSEM), Bahnhofstrasse 1, 7302 Landquart, Switzerland;
5 Vitrocell Systems GmbH, Fabrik Sonntag 3, 78193 Waldkirch, Germany; c.schlager@vitrocell.com
6 Department of Chemistry, College of Natural Sciences, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea;
7 Institute of Next Generation Material Design, Hanyang University, Seoul 04673, Korea
8 Wageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen University & Research, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708 Wageningen, The Netherlands;
9 School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK;
The aim of this publication is to discuss how and when automated preparation can enhance the quality of the measurement results. For modern apparatuses, the measurement conditions are recorded and saved in the metadata automatically. As a result, the main reason for varying results is the different sample preparation. An actual interlaboratory comparison is ongoing to investigate the effect of different preparation methods systematically for ToF-SIMS. An air–liquid interface was developed to show that automation is possible for rather complex samples. Biological samples can be prepared in a reproducible manner, under exactly the same conditions on a TEM grid for the analysis of size and shape. Furthermore, chemical analysis can be performed by means of mass spectrometry.
Read more