I was checking the record format in the last days. I am quite unhappy with the presentation of the scanning / mass range section. As usual, there is very differnent data:

• MASS_RANGE_M/Z 100-2000
• SCANNING_RANGE 50.00-400.00
• SCANNING_RANGE 211.11@hcd22.00 [50.00-220.00]
• SCANNING_RANGE [50.00-390.00]
• SCANNING_RANGE 100-3000
• SCAN_RANGE_M/Z 85-500
• SCANNING 1 amu/sec (m/z = 20-2040)
• SCANNING 1 sec/scan (m/z=100-1000)
• SCANNING 1.0 sec/scan (m/z = 50-1000)
• SCANNING_CYCLE 1.5 cycle/sec
• SCANNING 0.1 sec/scan
• SCANNING 5 Sec

The scan range was identified as important by @sneumann some while ago, if I remember correctly.

However, the representation in MassBank is not consolidated.

Therefore, I suggest to restructure the scanning sector:

• SCANNING MASS_RANGE_M/Z
• SCANNING SCAN_CYCLE

@schymane @sneumann @meier-rene, any comments? We promised to implement GC-HRMS in Norman and thus I would like to finalise the Records Format soon such that Nikiforos and Nikos could go ahead with the processing of records.

I would prefer
MASS_RANGE_M/Z (without SCANNING in front)
and maybe SCANNING_RATE or SCANNING_SETTING?
They do not all appear to be cycles, there are different units relative to other units depending on the instrument (and I guess this cannot be unified easily) but SCANNING is rather unspecific.