4.7 Article

Use of various β-cyclodextrin derivatives as chiral selectors for the enantiomeric separation of higenamine by capillary electrophoresis

Journal

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 134, Issue -, Pages 289-294

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2017.05.012

Keywords

Higenamine; Capillary electrophoresis; beta-Cyclodextrin derivatives; Enantioseparation

Funding

  1. Fujian Provincial Health and Family Planning Commission [2016/2/26]
  2. Department of Education, Fujian Province [JZ160445]
  3. Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine [X2015016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present work, four beta-cyclodextrin derivatives including neutral (methyl-and hydroxypropyl-) and anionic (carboxymethyl-and sulfated-) beta-cyclodextrin derivatives have been tested for the enantioseparation of higenamine by capillary electrophoretic method. To our knowledge, there is no literature about using capillary electrophoresis for the chiral separation of higenamine. To achieve the best resolution in the presence of each beta-cyclodextrin derivative, the primary factors affecting separation efficiency, such as buffer pH and concentration of beta-cyclodextrin derivatives, were investigated. All enantiomeric separation was performed by 30 mmol/L phosphate buffer with an applied voltage of 20 kV or - 20 kV. Under the optimum conditions, four beta-cyclodextrin derivatives(methyl-beta-cyclodextrin, hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin, carboxymethyl-beta-cyclodextrin and sulfated-beta-cyclodextrin) exhibited good separation performances for higenamine with the Rs value of 23, 5.8, 9.4 and 11.7 respectively. As well as the chiral separation abilities of different beta-cyclodextrin derivatives were compared. Moreover, the method for determining R-(+)-higenamine in Nelumbins plumula was proposed employing carboxymethyl-beta-cyclodextrin as the chiral selector. (C) 2017 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available