4.6 Article

Enantioseparation of atropine by capillary electrophoresis using sulfated β-cyclodextrin:: application to a plant extract

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 868, Issue 2, Pages 285-294

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(99)01230-3

Keywords

enantiomer separation; plant materials; alkaloids; atropine; cyclodextrins; hyoscyamine; tropane alkaloids

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) method, with sulfated P-CD as chiral selector, was optimized by means of an experimental design for the enantioseparation of atropine. In this study, a central composite design was used and the following factors were varied simultaneously: buffer concentration, buffer pH and sulfated P-CD concentration. The resolutions between littorine and its positional isomer ((-)-hyoscyamine) and between atropine enantiomers, as well as the separation time and generated current were established as responses. A model was obtained for each response by linear multiple regression of a second-degree mathematical expression. The most favorable conditions were determined by maximizing the resolution between atropine enantiomers and by setting the other responses at threshold values. Successful results were obtained with a 55 mM phosphate buffer at pH 7 in the presence of 2.9 mM sulfated-beta-CD at 20 degrees C and 20 kV. Under these optimized conditions, a baseline separation of littorine and atropine enantiomers was achieved in less than 5 min. Finally, the method allowed the enantiomeric separation of atropine in a pharmaceutical formulation and was also found to be suitable for the enantiomeric purity evaluation of (-)-hyoscyamine in plant extracts, in relation with the extraction procedure. It was demonstrated that supercritical fluid extraction induced less racemization than classical liquid-solid extraction procedures. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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