4.6 Article

Two new azamacrocycle-based stationary phases for high-performance liquid chromatography: Preparation and comparative evaluation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1270, 期 -, 页码 186-193

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.11.007

关键词

Azamacrocycle; Stationary phase; HPLC; Multiple interactions; Shape and planarity recognition

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20905020]
  2. Plan for Scientific Innovation Talent of Henan Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, two new azamacrocycle-bonded stationary phases for high-performance liquid chromatography are described. The new phases were prepared by respectively coupling a 14-membered Curtis macrocycle and a 30-membered hexaazaannulene to gamma-chloropropyltrimethoxylsilane-modified silica and characterized by elemental analysis and infrared spectroscopy. To understand the effects of the structures of the azamacrocyles and their functional groups upon the retention and separation, the chromatographic behaviors of the two stationary phases were compared by eluting alkylbenzenes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and aromatic amines. The two new phases demonstrated unique selectivity and fine chromatographic performance, which were guaranteed by multiple interactions, including hydrophobic, hydrogen-bonding, pi-pi and dipole-induced dipole interactions between stationary phase and solutes. On the other hand, the difference between the structures of embedded azamacrocyles did lead to remarkable dissimilarity in the shape and planarity recognition of isomers, which was highlighted by the 30-membered hexaazaannulene-bonded phases' superiority over 14-membered tetraaza macrocycle-bonded phases' in discriminating specific PAHs. With a wide range of probes, the linear solvation energy relationship model was also applied to evaluate the chromatographic properties of the two stationary phases, further verifying the chromatographic results. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据