Magnesium isotope mass spectrum

For a modern chosen example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology lists neutral magnesium atomic masses $23.985041697\mathrm{u}$, $24.985836976\mathrm{u}$, and $25.982592968\mathrm{u}$, with reference isotopic abundances $0.7899$, $0.1000$, and $0.1101$. They describe the isotopes with mass numbers 24, 25, and 26, respectively.^[ref] These modern inputs are not a reconstruction of historical observations.

Use the dimensionless mass-to-charge ratio coordinate $x=(m/\mathrm{u})/z$. For the illustration only, approximate ion masses by the neutral atomic masses. The singly charged positions are then near $23.98504$, $24.98584$, and $25.98259$; the doubly charged companions are near $11.99252$, $12.49292$, and $12.99130$. The neutral-to-ion correction already given above is essential at higher accuracy. A peak near $x=12$ alone need not identify a chemical element: another ion with a different electric charge can occupy the same mass-to-charge ratio interval.

For the narrow singly charged peak at $x\approx 24.98584$, the chosen full width at half maximum $\Delta x=0.12$ gives mass resolving power $R\approx 208.2$; widening to $\Delta x=1.20$ gives $R\approx 20.82$. Adjacent isotope spacings here are approximately one unit in $x$. Peaks are visibly separated in the first chosen profile and overlap strongly in the second. A small uncertainty in a fitted peak centre would not by itself make the overlapping components resolved.

Even integrated peak areas need a response model. For isotope fraction $f_i$, let ${\eta }_{i,z}$ collect the probability of ionization into electric charge state $z$, transmission through the analyzer, and the detection response. In a linear instrument with overall exposure factor $C$, the component area isEqual ${\eta }_{i,z}$ at a fixed $z$ makes normalized areas equal the fractions; otherwise it does not. In the chosen example, doubling only the mass-25 response changes the normalized areas to $0.71809$, $0.18182$, and $0.10009$, although the neutral sample is unchanged. Photographic darkening introduces another possible nonlinearity: neither line darkness nor peak height is a universal measure of neutral isotopic abundance. Calibration of position and calibration of intensity answer different questions. Matched standards, a known electric charge assignment, and a response correction make isotope analysis useful; a visually impressive set of peaks alone does not supply those controls.