Very simple question; but at the same time annoying..Grammer

[UK12345]

This is a very simple question really, but I cannot find the answer anywhere...

If, lets say I am using an LC with a triple quadrupole detector: is the correct abbreviation i) LC-MS/MS ii) LC-MS-MS iii) LCMS iv)LC/MS ???
What is the difference between using a '-'or a '/' to separate two instruments?

Similarly, lets say I am using OFFLINE SPE, then I analyse the samples by LC with UV detection; is the correct abbreviation i)SPE-LC-UV ii) SPE, LC-UV iii) SPE/LC-UV
Does the use of a 'comma' between instruments suggest SPE is offline whereas the '-' suggest is online?

Thankyou for your help.

[jarednathan]

Haha. I believe what you are going to find is that this is not such a simple question. I can foresee many different opinions. However, the way you presented it gives a good light to how you should be seeing it.

You will see GC/MS and GC-MS all over literature, and even GCMS. They are both in use, so I do not think you can definately say one is right and one is wrong. That is a matter of conjecture at this point. The way I learned it is that you use the "/" to represent interfaces, or inline set-ups.

However, in your example with SPE, one technique is offline. It is completely logical that you should make a distinction to offline vs. inline. Therefore writing SPE-GC/MS would indicate this very well. As long as you are consitent you should be OK. This help?

[KM-USA]

grammar

[tom jupille]

Tetraplyoctomy

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-tet1.htm

[Camisotro]

I've always gone with the convention that an interface between two different technologies is a "hyphenated method", ergo LC-MS, and LC-MS/MS. But SPE-LC-UV (not that SPE is necessarily interfaced to the LC but that seems acceptable too).