4.5 Article

Elimination of the artefact peaks in capillary electrophoresis determination of glutamate by using organic solvents in sample preparation

Journal

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
Volume 38, Issue 21, Pages 3781-3787

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201500601

Keywords

Amino acids; Capillary electrophoresis; Contactless conductivity detection; Peak splitting

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2011/02477-3]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [309449/2014-6]
  3. Instituto Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia em Bioanalitica (INCTBio)
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [11/02477-3] Funding Source: FAPESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Focusing on the demand from the food industry for fast and reliable alternative methods to control the quality of food products, we present in this paper a method for amino acid separation and glutamic acid quantification in complex matrices employing capillary electrophoresis with capacitively coupled contactless conductivity detection. We demonstrate by simulation and experimentally the use of organic solvents in sample preparation to prevent peak splitting and increase stacking in capillary electrophoretic separations of amino acids. Additionally, we obtained results for glutamic acid quantification comparable to those obtained via traditional methods used at industrial sites. We tested premium and low-cost samples with large variations in their glutamic acid content, which demonstrated the wide range of applicability of the method presented herein. The results of the proposed capacitively coupled contactless conductivity detection based capillary electrophoresis method agreed with those obtained by an enzymatic detector and ultra high performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry, considering a confidence level of 95%.

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