The Agilent Ion Mobility Q-TOF Mass Spectrometer System

Significance of the Topic

The combination of uniform-field ion mobility spectrometry (IM) with high-resolution mass spectrometry (Q-TOF) represents a major advance in analytical separation methods. By providing an orthogonal dimension based on collision cross section (CCS), the Agilent IM-QTOF system enables more confident compound identification, improved analysis of complex mixtures, and preservation of molecular structures in the gas phase.

Objectives and Overview

This technical overview describes the Agilent 6560 Ion Mobility Q-TOF LC/MS system, focusing on:

• Direct measurement of accurate CCS without class-specific calibrants
• High ion mobility resolution (>60) under uniform low-field conditions
• Enhanced sensitivity via dual ion funnel technology
• Integration with UHPLC for combined LC, IM, and MS separation power

Methodology and Used Instrumentation

The core instrument elements include:

• Electrospray ionization with Agilent Jet Stream source for high ionization efficiency
• Front ion funnel to concentrate ions and remove neutrals
• Trapping funnel and gate to form discrete ion packets for drift separation
• 80 cm uniform-field drift tube operated at ~20 V/cm with nitrogen buffer gas
• Rear funnel and hexapole ion guide to refocus ions into the Q-TOF analyzer

Uniform-field operation allows direct conversion of drift times to CCS via the Mason-Schamp equation. Critical parameters (pressure, temperature, field) are controlled to yield CCS accuracy within 1–2% without external calibrants.

Main Results and Discussion

Key performance highlights:

• Ion mobility resolving power >60 for small and large molecules
• Automated CCS calculations with <1% precision
• Sensitivity gains: ~5× over standard electrospray; overall ~1,000× improvement compared to non-funnel designs
• Baseline separation of isobaric trisaccharides (melezitose vs. raffinose)
• Drift-time separation of near-isobaric pesticides differing by 0.2 mDa
• Orthogonal separation boosts peptide and lipid coverage: up to 5× more lipids and 3× more proteins identified in case studies
• Preservation of protein conformers demonstrated by resolving multiple ubiquitin charge-state conformations

Optimization of drift resolution relies on long drift pathways, narrow ion packets from the double-grid trap funnel, and careful control of diffusion effects. Sensitivity optimization uses high-pressure ion funnels upstream and downstream of the drift cell to minimize ion losses.

Benefits and Practical Applications

The IM-QTOF system offers:

• Enhanced peak capacity through true multidimensional separation (LC × IM × MS)
• Ability to perform All-Ions MS/MS with drift separation to assign fragments to precursors
• Improved detection of trace-level species in complex matrices
• Confidence in structural assignments via CCS measurements
• Reduced analysis ambiguity for isomeric and conformational variants

Applications span proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, glycomics, and small-molecule screening where complex sample characterization is critical.

Future Trends and Applications

Emerging directions include:

• Integration of IM-MS data with machine learning for automated feature annotation
• Faster mobility-MS workflows for high-throughput screening
• Advanced data visualization and mining tools for large-scale CCS databases
• Expansion to native MS studies of macromolecular assemblies
• Coupling with microfluidic and ambient ionization techniques

Ongoing software and hardware innovations will further enhance sensitivity, resolving power, and ease of CCS interpretation.

Conclusion

The Agilent IM-QTOF LC/MS system delivers a robust platform for high-performance multidimensional separations. By combining uniform-field ion mobility with sensitive ion funnels and high-resolution Q-TOF analysis, it enables accurate CCS measurement, preserves molecular conformations, and significantly expands analytical coverage for complex samples.

References

1. H.E. Revercomb and E.A. Mason, Anal. Chem. 47, 970–983 (1975).
2. K. Giles et al., Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 18, 2401–2414 (2004).
3. S.D. Pringle et al., Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 261, 1–12 (2007).
4. K. Tang et al., Anal. Chem. 77, 3330–3339 (2005).
5. Y. Ibrahim et al., Anal. Chem. 79, 7845–7852 (2007).
6. B.H. Clowers et al., Anal. Chem. 80, 612–623 (2008).
7. D. Morsa et al., Anal. Chem. 83, 5775–5782 (2011).
8. A.A. Shvartsburg and R.D. Smith, Anal. Chem. 80, 9689–9699 (2008).
9. S.I. Merenbloom et al., J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 23, 553–562 (2012).
10. D.P. Smith et al., Eur. J. Mass Spectrom. 15, 113–130 (2009).
11. M.F. Bush et al., Anal. Chem. 82, 9557–9565 (2010).
12. J. May et al., ASMS 61st Annual Conference Abstracts (2013).
13. P. Dwivedi et al., Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 298, 78–90 (2010).
14. C. Lapthorn et al., Mass Spectrom. Rev. 32, 43–71 (2013).