Talk:Monoisotopic mass

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pjimen4lsu. Peer reviewers: NathalieNJ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

October 2007

The article on monoisotopic mass appears to me to be scientifically factual and accurate. After reading the guidelines, I find that it does indeed respects a neutral point of view perspective (NPOV).

I further find that the author didn't use personally invested tone and informal style. I didn't perceive that the article reads like a story. I believe this complaint stems from the fact that the author did adopt an explanatory pedagogical style. This style provides a factual context within which the meaning is made clear, and it is a valid formal style.

It is important to note that "formal style" should not be confused with presenting information in a dry and contextually sterile manner. Encyclopic entries should not be merely collection of fact. I believe the article, as written, to be a concise and useful explanation of monoisotopic mass, its application, and general interpretation.

Michel Hachey 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. You might consider removing the tag if you find it inappropriate.--Nick Y. 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Monoisotopic mass/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I do not believe that this term belongs in physics at all, but rather in chemistry. The term is a practical one used as an aid to mass spectrometry and does not correspond to any useful physical concept. The discussion regarding why the lightest isotope is not the most abundant assumes that the reader expects it to be the most abundant. The innocent bystander wouldn't; nor would the expert. I think a few graphics would improve the explanation. I did not edit past the first P.

Last edited at 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

February 2019

1) The article does not have inline citations or enough references 2)The article doesn't cover enough information about monoisotopic mass, where and why it is used over other types of elemental masses. It also doesn't mention when this term first came to use and why. 6) The article explains monoisotopic mass as if the reader knows everything there is to know about what sums an element's mass and the differences between elemental masses. NathalieNJ (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

1)The references have been fixed; however, there are not enough inline citations. 3) I would consider changing the section header "Isotopic abundance" to "Isotopic abundance in organic mass spectrometry" 4)The grammar needs to be fixed throughout the entire article. Some specifics include: within the introduction; the sentence "For some atom like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and sulfur the Mmi of these elements is exactly the same as the mass of its natural isotope, with is the lightest one". The with can be changed to which and the grammar should also be changed. Another important note is to explain what Mmi is and what it stands for somewhere before this sentence. Within nominal mass and monoisotopic mass; this section has the beginning of a sentence start with "What this means is..." , instead start the sentence with, "When using..., the two are not distinguishable after ionization because of the cross lapping of m/z peaks. Using MS equipped with an ion detector capable of high resolution, such as an orbitrap, allows for distinction between the peaks of the two atoms..." The sentence after the calculations of the monoisotopic mass should also be re-written. My suggestion is "The two types of atoms have different results when passing through the mass spectrometer." Within the Isotopic abundance: You start with "If piece of iron was put into a mass spretometer to be ananalyse, it would show multiple mass spectral peacks this is because iron accours in the isotopes of Fe-54, Fe-56, Fe-57 and Fe-58[4]. This mass spectral peak represent that the monoisotopic mass is not always the most abundant isotopic peak in a spectrum despite it containing the most abundant isotope for each atom. " the first errors I notice is spectrometer, analyze, and peaks misspelled. Secondly, The sentences need to be fixed, preferably with "The mass spectra of iron (Fe) would result in multiple mass spectral peaks due to the existence of the iron isotopes, Fe(54), Fe(56), Fe(57), Fe(58). The mass spectrum of Fe also shows that the most abundant isotopic peak in the spectrum is not the monoisotopic peak." Within the Context of usage: The sentence " For this reason mostly the average molecular mass or even more commonly the molar mass is used" should be fixed. You can simply take out the "mostly", add a comma afer reason, and eliminate "or even more commonly". Two more sentences that need clarification are "By choosing to look for the most abundant isotopic version of a molecule, the analysis is likely to be most sensitive, which enables even smaller amounts of the target compounds to be quantified. Therefore, the concept is very useful to analysts looking for trace-level residues of organic molecules, such as pesticide residue in foods and agricultural products." NathalieNJ (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)