4.5 Article

Evaluation of silica from different vendors as the solid support of anion-exchange chiral stationary phases by means of preferential sorption and liquid chromatography

Journal

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
Volume 42, Issue 24, Pages 3653-3661

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201900731

Keywords

chiral anion exchanger; preferential sorption; liquid chromatography; particle size distribution; pore volume effect

Funding

  1. Czech Science Foundation [17-00089S]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chromatographic performance of a chiral stationary phase is significantly influenced by the employed solid support. Properties of the most commonly used support, silica particles, such as size and size distribution, and pore size are of utmost importance for both superficially porous particles and fully porous particles. In this work, we have focused on evaluation of fully porous particles from three different vendors as solid supports for a brush-type chiral stationary phase based on 9-O-tert-butylcarbamoyl quinidine. We have prepared corresponding stationary phases under identical experimental conditions and determined the parameters of the modified silica by physisorption measurements and scanning electron microscopy. Enantiorecognition properties of the chiral stationary phases have been studied using preferential sorption experiments. The same material was slurry-packed into chromatographic columns and the chromatographic properties have been evaluated in liquid chromatography. We show that preferential sorption can provide valuable information about the influence of the pore size and total pore volume on the interaction of analytes of different size with the chirally-modified silica surface. The data can be used to understand differences observed in chromatographic evaluation of the chiral stationary phases. The combination of preferential sorption and liquid chromatography separation can provide detailed information on new chiral stationary phases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available