4.6 Article

Metal-organic framework MIL-100(Fe) as the stationary phase for both normal-phase and reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1274, 期 -, 页码 137-144

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.12.015

关键词

Metal-organic frameworks; Stationary phase; High performance liquid chromatography; Normal phase; Reverse phase; Isomers

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20935001, 21077057]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20935001, 21077057]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metal-organic framework MIL-100(Fe) was explored as a novel stationary phase for both normal-phase and reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography. Two groups of analytes (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene and 1-chloronaphthalene; aniline, acetanilide, 2-nitroaniline and 1-naphthylamine) were used to test the separation performance of MIL-100(Fe) in the reverse-phase mode, while the isomers of chloroaniline or toluidine were employed to evaluate its performance in the normal-phase mode. The MIL-100(Fe) packed column gave a baseline separation of all the tested analytes with good precision. The separation was controlled by negative enthalpy change and entropy change in the reverse-phase mode, but positive enthalpy change and entropy change in the normal-phase mode. The relative standard deviations of retention time, peak area, peak height, and half peak width for eleven replicate separations of the tested analytes were 0.2-0.7%, 0.5-3.6%, 0.6-2.3% and 0.8-1.7%, respectively. The mesoporous cages, accessible windows, excellent chemical and solvent stability, metal active sites and aromatic pore walls make MIL-100(Fe) a good candidate as a novel stationary phase for both normal-phase and reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography. (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