4.6 Article

Evaluation of new cellulose-based chiral stationary phases Sepapak-2 and Sepapak-4 for the enantiomeric separation of pesticides by nano liquid chromatography and capillary electrochromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1234, 期 -, 页码 22-31

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.01.035

关键词

Pesticides; Metalaxyl; Capillary electrochromatography; Nano-liquid chromatography; Polysaccharide-based chiral stationary phase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two novel polysaccharide-based chiral stationary phases (CSPs), known as Sepapak-2 (cellulose tris(3-chloro-4-methylphenylcarbamate)) and Sepapak-4 (cellulose tris(4-chloro-3-methylphenylcarbamate)), have been evaluated in this work for the chiral separation of a group of 16 pesticides including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. The optimization of the mobile phase employed in nano-liquid chromatography (nano-LC) enabled the chiral separation of seven pesticides on Sepapak-2 and of nine pesticides on Sepapak-4. Due to the fact that Sepapak-4 gave better results, this column was selected to compare nano-LC and capillary electrochromatography (CEC) under the same conditions that consisted in the use of a 90/9/1 (v/v/v) ACN/H2O/ammonium formate (pH 2.5) background electrolyte (BGE). As expected, both the efficiency and the chiral resolution obtained in CEC experiments were higher than in nano-LC for all the analyzed compounds. The analytical characteristics of the CEC developed methodology were evaluated in terms of linearity, LODs, LOQs, precision, selectivity, and accuracy allowing its application to the quantitation of metalaxyl and its enantiomeric impurity in a commercial fungicide product marketed as enantiomerically pure (metalaxyl-M) and in soil and tap water samples after solid phase extraction (SPE). The determined amount of metalaxyl-M was found to be a 26% above the labeled content and it contained an enantiomeric impurity of a 3.7% of S-metalaxyl was determined. (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