4.6 Review

Applications of asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation for separation and characterization of polysaccharides: A review

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1635, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461726

Keywords

Polysaccharide; Separation; Characterization; Asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation

Funding

  1. Nature Science Foundation of Hebei Province [B2016201002]
  2. Key Project of Hebei Education Department [ZD2019009]
  3. Medical Science Foundation of Hebei University [2020A08]
  4. Postgraduate's Innovation Fund Project [hbu2020ss056]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Polysaccharides are abundant natural biopolymers widely used in various fields. Asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) has been utilized for separation and characterization of polysaccharides due to its ability to reduce the risk of shear degradation. AF4 has been effectively applied in separating and characterizing polysaccharides from different sources in the past decade.
Polysaccharides are the most abundant natural biopolymers on the earth and are widely used in food, medicine, materials, cosmetics, and other fields. The physicochemical properties of polysaccharides such as particle size and molecular weight often affect their practical applications. In recent years, asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) has been widely used in the separation and characterization of polysaccharides because it has no stationary phases or packing materials, which reduces the risk of shear degradation of polysaccharides. In this review, the principle of AF4 was introduced briefly. The operation conditions of AF4 for the analysis of polysaccharides were discussed. The applications of AF4 for the separation and characterization of polysaccharides from different sources (plants, animals, and microorganisms) over the last decade were critically reviewed. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available