4.5 Review

Recent contributions for improving sensitivity in chiral CE

Journal

ELECTROPHORESIS
Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 67-81

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/elps.201700293

Keywords

Chiral CE; In-capillary sample preconcentration techniques; MS detection; Sample treatment techniques; Sensitivity improvement

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality (Government Delegation for the National Plan on Drug Abuse) [PNSD-2016I073]
  2. Comunidad of Madrid (Spain)
  3. European funding from FEDER program [S2013/ABI-3028]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The flexibility and versatility of the chiral CE are unrivaled and the same instrumentation can be used to separate a diverse range of analytes, both large and small molecules, whether charged or uncharged. However, one of the disadvantages is generally thought to be the poor sensitivity of ultraviolet (UV) detection, which is the most popular among CE detectors. This review focuses on methodologies and applications regarding improvements of sensitivity in chiral CE published in the last 2 years (June 2015 until May 2017). This contribution continues to update this series of biannual reviews, first published in Electrophoresis in 2006. The main body of the review brings a survey of publications organized according to different approaches to detect a low amount of analytes, either by sample treatment procedures or by in-capillary sample preconcentration techniques, both using UV detection, or even by employing detection systems more sensitive than UV absorption, such as LIF or MS. This review provides comprehensive tables listing the new approaches in sensitive chiral CE with categorizing by the fundamental mechanism to enhance the sensitivity, which provide relevant information on the strategies employed. The concluding remarks in the final part of the review evaluate present state of art and the trends for sensitivity enhancement in chiral CE.

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