Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1002/rcm.70004 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1002/rcm.70004 41359886!?!41359886 Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=41359886&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Rapid+Commun+Mass+Spectrom 2026 ; 40 (5): e70004 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=41359886|t=2026. Comparison of Activation Techniques for the Identification of Nitazene Analogs Using the NIST/NIJ Data Interpretation Tool |pdf=|usr=}}{{41359886}} gab.com Text Comparison of Activation Techniques for the Identification of Nitazene Analogs Using the NIST/NIJ Data Interpretation Tool JO: Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=41359886 #FOAvip RATIONALE: Direct analysis in real time (DART) and electrospray ionization (ESI) are commonly used in forensic science and are combined with different activation techniques, which impact the degree and type of fragmentation. Therefore, this study compares collision-induced dissociation (CID), in-source CID (IS-CID), and all ions fragmentation (AIF) activation for nitazene analog identification using the NIST/NIJ Data Interpretation Tool (DIT). METHODS: DART and ESI were used to analyze 18 nitazene analogs on a quadrupole time-of-flight (Q-TOF) mass spectrometer. CID, IS-CID, and AIF were explored with DART, and CID was used for ESI analysis. All activation techniques included the use of low, medium, and high activation energies. The resulting data were compared with the NIST DART-MS Forensics Database using the NIST/NIJ DIT. RESULTS: The CID spectra were generally less noisy and had fewer ions than the IS-CID or the AIF spectra. The IS-CID spectra generated higher mass-to-charge (m/z) product ions and had fewer characteristic product ions than either CID or AIF. The NIST/NIJ DIT correctly identified 14/18 nitazene analogs when using AIF compared with 13/18 correct identifications using both CID and IS-CID. The ESI-CID data produced 12/18 correctly identified samples. CONCLUSIONS: All three activation techniques performed similarly, based on the NIST/NIJ DIT results. However, IS-CID produced significantly less fragmentation than CID or AIF, indicating that AIF is a suitable screening technique for this instrumental setup. The NIST/NIJ DIT can also be utilized for ESI-CID spectra, although slightly fewer nitazene analogs were correctly identified with ESI-CID than with DART-CID. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of Activation Techniques for the Identification of Nitazene Analogs Using the NIST/NIJ Data Interpretation Tool ????Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=41359886 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=41359886 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|41359886}}</ref> Comparison of Activation Techniques for the Identification of Nitazene Analogs Using the NIST/NIJ Data Interpretation Tool #MMPMID41359886 Hardwick EK; Couch AN; Davidson JT Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2026[Mar]; 40 (5): e70004 PMID41359886show ga RATIONALE: Direct analysis in real time (DART) and electrospray ionization (ESI) are commonly used in forensic science and are combined with different activation techniques, which impact the degree and type of fragmentation. Therefore, this study compares collision-induced dissociation (CID), in-source CID (IS-CID), and all ions fragmentation (AIF) activation for nitazene analog identification using the NIST/NIJ Data Interpretation Tool (DIT). METHODS: DART and ESI were used to analyze 18 nitazene analogs on a quadrupole time-of-flight (Q-TOF) mass spectrometer. CID, IS-CID, and AIF were explored with DART, and CID was used for ESI analysis. All activation techniques included the use of low, medium, and high activation energies. The resulting data were compared with the NIST DART-MS Forensics Database using the NIST/NIJ DIT. RESULTS: The CID spectra were generally less noisy and had fewer ions than the IS-CID or the AIF spectra. The IS-CID spectra generated higher mass-to-charge (m/z) product ions and had fewer characteristic product ions than either CID or AIF. The NIST/NIJ DIT correctly identified 14/18 nitazene analogs when using AIF compared with 13/18 correct identifications using both CID and IS-CID. The ESI-CID data produced 12/18 correctly identified samples. CONCLUSIONS: All three activation techniques performed similarly, based on the NIST/NIJ DIT results. However, IS-CID produced significantly less fragmentation than CID or AIF, indicating that AIF is a suitable screening technique for this instrumental setup. The NIST/NIJ DIT can also be utilized for ESI-CID spectra, although slightly fewer nitazene analogs were correctly identified with ESI-CID than with DART-CID. ?Comparison of Activation Techniques for the Identification of Nitazene(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing