4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Production of malachite green oxalate and leucomalachite green reference materials certified for purity

Journal

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 391, Issue 6, Pages 2035-2045

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-008-2048-2

Keywords

reference materials; supercritical fluid extraction (SFE); HPLC; purity; malachite green; leucomalachite green

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Malachite green oxalate (MG oxalate) and leucomalachite green (LMG) have been prepared and certified as pure reference materials. The purities of MG oxalate and LMG were assessed by high-performance liquid chromatography-diode array detection (HPLC-DAD), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), Karl Fischer titration, ashing and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). MG oxalate was purified by supercritical fluid extraction (SFE). Prior to purification, commercial MG oxalate purity was estimated to be about 90%. The main impurities present in SFE-purified MG oxalate were identified and quantified using HPLC-DAD. The main impurities were found to be monode-MG (monodemethylated MG oxalate synthesis impurity), 4-(dimethylamino)benzophenone (4-DMABP), MG-carbinol and LMG. The homogeneity of both reference materials was also determined. Issues associated with the stability of LMG and MG oxalate in solution forced an extensive study investigating different parameters i.e. solvent, acid, analyte concentration and temperature. MG oxalate (100 mu g/mL) was found to be stable in acetonitrile containing 1% v/v glacial acetic acid for at least 155 days and LMG (100 mu g/mL) was stable in acetonitrile for at least 133 days. The final purity value for MG oxalate was 94.3 +/- 1.4% m/m at the 95% confidence interval (or 67% m/m if MG cation is reported). For LMG, the certified purity was found to be 98.8 +/- 0.8% m/m at the 95% confidence interval.

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