Ionization suppression is a complex phenomenon associated with atmospheric pressure-based ionization techniques such as electrospray
ionization (ESI) that affects mass spectrometry (MS) detection (1–4). The differences in ionization response in ESI have been
commonly attributed to deprotonation, increase in surface tension, increase in droplet size, presence of nonvolatile components,
and in complex samples, large amounts of competing species that take some of the available ions. Here we summarize, in chronological
order, some observations on ionization suppression with these reagents. Approximately one third of the reviewed publications
mention ionization suppression, and of these, about 55% observed significant ionization suppression, while approximately 45%
reported no significant ionization suppression. For ease of comparison, Tables I and II list some key parameters of the experimental
and instrument setup of these investigators, but note that differences in sample matrix also could affect ionization suppression.
Roughly 70% of the publications that reported significant ionization suppression used HFBA, three used NFPA, and one each
used TDFHA and PFPA. Among the publications that reported no significant ionization suppression, only 43% used HFBA; 36% used
PDFOA or TDFHA; two used NFPA; and one used PFPA. Amino acids and aminoglycosides accounted for a total of 28% of the significant
ionization suppression group, versus 50% of the nonsignificant ionization suppression group. Proteins and peptides accounted
for 28% of both groups. Diverse analytes accounted for 44% and 21% of the significant ionization suppression and nonsignificant
ionization suppression groups, respectively.
Keever and colleagues (15) noted that HFBA produced some signal suppression, but postcolumn addition of propionic acid enhanced
response 10-fold for a cephalosporin antibiotic. Venkateshwaran and colleagues (25) noted that peptides and proteins are very
susceptible to denaturation at extremes of pH, which leads to unfolding of the biomolecule and a change in the ESI charge
state intensities towards lower m/z values due to an increase in the number of exposed amino acids, which increases the number of ionizable sites in the molecule.
Chaimbault and colleagues (26), in a study of underivatized amino acids, using 0.25–5 mM PDFOA, reported that an increase
in the surfactant concentration increased the intensity of the positive ion MS signal; that is, no suppression, but ionization enhancement. Watt and colleagues (16)
observed that buffered 1 mM HFBA (pH 7.4) gave lower sensitivity, possibly due to reduced protonation of epibatidine. Petritis
and colleagues (10) observed intense background signals at m/z 102 with 2 mM NFPA.