Controversial terms: Difference between revisions

From Mass Spec Terms
← Older editNewer edit →
→In the literature: clean up using AWB
Line 81: Line 81:
A remaining issue is the nomenclature for n<sup>th</sup> generation product ions. Glish suggests x generation product ions where x=n-1 for a MS<sup>n</sup> experiment.
A remaining issue is the nomenclature for n<sup>th</sup> generation product ions. Glish suggests x generation product ions where x=n-1 for a MS<sup>n</sup> experiment.


== Slashes and Hyphens ==
= Slashes and Hyphens =


How should [[Slashes and Hyphens]] be used in combined techniques?
How should [[Slashes and Hyphens]] be used in combined techniques?


{{:Slashes and hyphens}}


[[Category:Comment]]
[[Category:Comment]]

Revision as of 08:08, 16 July 2009

Collision Induced Dissociation vs. Collisionally Activated Dissociation

Should CAD be replaced in all cases by CID?

Collision-Induced Dissociation
Collisionally Activated Dissociation

In the literature

A search for occurrences (in 2005) of the two terms in the literature reveals a distinct preference.

Collision-induced dissociation (CID) and collisionally activated dissociation (CAD) refer to the process in which a collision between and ion and a neutral species results in the conversion of part of the translational energy into internal energy of the ion and subsequent fragmentation. The IUPAC document defines the two terms equivalently as does Price (JASMS, 2, 336, 1991). The ASMS Terms and Definitions document does not mention CAD. Sparkman defines CAD and CID equivalently, but notes his preference for CAD.

A search of the literature for "collision induced dissociation" and "collisionally activated dissociation" suggests that the former term is preferred. In Figure 1, the number of occurrences of the above strings in journal articles is plotted as a function of the year of publication. The plot shows a clear preference for CID over CAD that increases after 1990. This trend can be seen clearly in Figure 2. The occurrence ratio is about 5 in the 80s and early 90s, then jumps to about 30 in the late 90s.

Based on this data, should the IUPAC document list collision induced dissociation/CID as the preferred term?

Google fight

Which is the more widely used term per Google: collision induced dissociation vs collisionally activated dissociation (CID usually wins).

Mass Resolution vs. Mass Resolving Power

How should Resolution and Resolving Power be defined?

Mass Resolution
Resolving Power (Mass)


Mass-to-Charge Ratio

Should the Thomson be used instead of m/z?

Should be m/z be replaced by m/q?

Atomic Mass Unit
Mass/charge Ratio
dalton
thomson


Parent/Daughter vs. Precursor/Product

Should Parent Ion/Daughter Ion be replaced with Precursor Ion/Product Ion? How about nth generation products?

Parent Ion
Daughter Ion
Precursor Ion
Product Ion

Statistics on Parent-Daughter vs. Precursor-Product

Here are some statistics (from 2005) on the Parent vs. Precursor and Daughter vs. Product debate.

A little more than a dozen years ago, it was suggested that the terms Parent Ion and Daughter Ion be replaced with Precursor Ion and Product Ion, respectively (see Glish, J. Am Soc. Mass Spectrom, 2, 349, 1991). The rationale is to avoid gender-specific terms to describe inanimate objects.

A check of the literature suggests that a shift in usage has in fact occurred. In the figure below, the occurrence of Daughter Ion is plotted as a function of year. The number of occurrences has dropped by about one-half since the early 90s. Quantifying the occurrences of Product Ion is difficult since the phrase yields results that are not related to mass spectrometry.

The plot below show the occurrences of precursor ion and parent ion. From this plot, it appears that the former term is now being used more frequently in place of the latter.

A plot of the ratio of occurrences seems to drive home this point.

A remaining issue is the nomenclature for nth generation product ions. Glish suggests x generation product ions where x=n-1 for a MSn experiment.

Slashes and Hyphens

How should Slashes and Hyphens be used in combined techniques?

For specific usage, see the list of acronyms

Slashes or hyphens for combined methods

There is a great deal of confusion on the use of slashes, hyphens, spaces, or no spaces to indicate the combination of techniques, particularly when acronyms and abbreviations are used. The Chicago Manual of Style tends to favor hyphens due to the ambiguity of the slash, which has connotations of "and/or" in many instances. The ACS Style Guide makes no specific recommendations but gives examples of slashes, hyphens, spaces and no spaces in examples. The American Institute of Physics Style Manual makes no specific recommendation but contains no examples of the slash usage. David Sparkman calls for separate connotations of the slash and hyphen with the former separating techniques and the latter instruments. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry has called for a slash to separate combined methods and a hyphen to highlight a particular component such as the ionization method (Sparkman instead suggests a space to separate the ionization method). The Definitions of Terms Relating to Mass Spectrometry (IUPAC Recommendations 2013) suggests the use of the hyphen but indicates that the slash can also be used.

QUOTED TEXT FROM IUPAC RECOMMENDATIONS 2013
The hyphen, or alternatively the slash (forward stroke), can be used to indicate combined methods such as gas chromatography separation combined with mass spectrometry detection. Thus, the above combination can be written as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry or alternatively as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. The corresponding abbreviations are GC-MS or GC/MS. The first use of a hyphen to indicate the combination of a separation method with mass spectrometry was in the early 1960s [1], and the use of a slash separator was in the 1970s [2]. The term hyphenated techniques was coined in 1980 [3]. Currently, hyphens and slashes are used interchangeably [4]. The journal Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry has in the past recommended that the combination of two analytical techniques be designated by a slash (Conventions adopted by RCM in Advice to Authors. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 17, Issue 1 (2003)). A recent Journal of Chromatography glossary also favors this usage [5]. IUPAC recommends that hyphens be used to describe variants of separation techniques, for example, gas-liquid chromatography and pyrolysis-gas chromatography [6]. The authors of this document are evenly split in their preference for hyphen or slash. For consistency with the prior recommendations, we use the hyphen for combined techniques but note that the slash can be used interchangeably.
From Definitions of Terms Relating to Mass Spectrometry (IUPAC Recommendations 2013); DOI: 10.1351/PAC-REC-06-04-06 © IUPAC 2013.

Other recommendations are given below.

Chicago Manual of Style

See http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/

The 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style indicates that slashes are most commonly used to indicate alternatives in the "and/or" formulation, for example "Hercules/Heracles."(CMOS 6.104) The CMOS also indicates that the slash is occasionally use to indicate "and" as in "Jekyll/Hyde." The "per" and "divided" by meanings are also noted.

The CMOS big table of hyphenation rules states that two nouns indicating two functions (the first noun doesn't modify the second) are hyphenated in both the noun and adjective forms.(CMOS 7.85)

American Chemical Society Style Guide

Chapter 10 of the ACS Style Guide[7] discusses editorial style including the use of hyphens and abbreviations.

Specific rules for combined methods are not given, but there are several examples in a list of abbreviations use space, no space, hyphen, en-dash, or slash. Surprisingly, neither GC-MS nor LC-MS are given in the list. Hyphen proponents will point to CE-MS, but slash advocates will point to CP/MAS.

Specific examples are: capillary electrophoresis mass spectrometry is abbreviated CE-MS, but cross-polarization/magic-angle spinning is abbreviated CP/MAS, but also CP-MAS, CP-MAS, CPMAS, and CP MAS are also indicated. Other examples are fast atom bombardment mass spectrometry (FABMS), Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FTICR), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR, FT/IR, FT-IR, and FT IR), glow discharge mass spectrometry (GDMS), high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS), isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS), isotopic ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS), laser desorption mass spectrometry (LDMS), matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOFMS and MALDI-TOF MS), plasma desorption mass spectrometry (PDMS), pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC-MS), time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS TOF MS), triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry (TQMS).

American Institute of Physics Style Manual

The AIP style manual uses the hyphen exclusively for combined terms.[8]

Mass Spectrometry Desk Reference

David Sparkman in his Mass Spectrometry Desk Reference recommends the use of the slash to indicate the combination of techniques and the hyphen to indicate the combination of instruments. Thus

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
Gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer (GC-MS)

similarly

time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS)
time-of-flight mass spectrometer (TOF-MS)

Ionization methods are set apart by a space, for example

electron ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (EI TOFMS)

Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry

The journal Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry has in the past given instructions to authors on combined techniques. For example, from the July 12, 2009 RCM:

The Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry author guidelines state

"A single analytical technique, or a type of instrument, is abbreviated without hyphens. Thus, TOFMS, FTICRMS."
"A hyphen is used when highlighting a particular component or feature of an instrument or technique. Thus, MALDI-TOFMS, ESI-MS/MS. When 2 or more different analytical techniques are coupled in tandem, this is represented by a solidus placed between the abbreviations for the techniques. Thus we write Py/GC/EI-MS, CZE/TOFMS."

Books

  • Hyphenated and Alternative Methods of Detection in Chromatography 2012 ISBN 9780849390777
  • LC-NMR and Other Hyphenated NMR Techniques 2011 ISBN 9781118135389
  • Hyphenated Techniques in Grape and Wine Chemistry 2008 ISBN 9780470061879
  • Hyphenated Techniques in Speciation Analysis 2003 ISBN 978-0-85404-545-7
  • Data Analysis for Hyphenated Techniques 1996 ISBN 0444822372
  • Trac: Directory of Hyphenated Techniques 1994 ISBN 0444821260
  • Hyphenated Techniques in Supercritical Fluid Chromatography and Extraction 1992 ISBN 9780444887948

Reviews

See also

Retrieved from "https://msterms.org/wiki/index.php?title=Controversial_terms&oldid=14003"