Talk:Soft laser desorption

Peer review

Hello Crafton, I have read through this wiki article. The overall structure is well, and the content of background part is detailed enough. Here are some suggestions. Maybe the Variants section can combine with application section, and provide brief information about its principle as well as the section instrumentation or the cons and pros part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuyinLi (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not my assigned article. I'm waiting for the article to get moved to mainspace, and then you will be able to review it. I apologize for the confusion. --JDCrafton (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soft laser desorption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517202246/http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0212/55.htm to http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0212/55.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430164249/http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/2002/public.html to http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/2002/public.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

On the background paragraph mentioning Tanaka's vs. Hillenkamp's contributions.

In the background paragraph, it is stated that: "Some have argued that Karas and Hillenkamp were more deserving of the Nobel Prize than Tanaka because their crystalline matrix method is much more widely used than Tanaka's liquid matrix. Countering this argument is the fact that Tanaka was the first to use a 337 nm nitrogen laser while Karas and Hillenkamp were using a 266 nm Nd:YAG laser. The "modern" MALDI approach came into being several years after the first soft laser desorption of proteins was demonstrated."

This statement is misleading: Both soft laser desorption and MALDI need a laser wavelength in resonance with the matrix. Resonant absorption occurrs in many matrices at 266 nm, the standard absorption wavelength for aromatic systems and the 4th harmonic of a Nd:YAG laser, and, although often with weaker absorption cross-section higher wavelengths, including 337 nm. The latter wavelength is the emission wavelength of nitrogen lasers, which in the past were preferentially used for MALDI for economic, not scientific reasons. Both wavelengths are equally valid to do MALDI of large biomolecules. Thus, the use of a nitrogen laser itself does not counter the criticism to the 2002 chemistry nobel prize. To lead this argument even further ad absurdum: By now most MALDI instruments use Nd:YAG and Nd:YLF lasers and no longer nitrogen lasers, which are limited in repetition rate. I could equally argue that Hillenkamp was further ahead of his time than Tanaka...

My recommendation: Remove this argument. 217.100.203.178 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)