4.6 Review

Molecular simulation studies of reversed-phase liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1287, 期 -, 页码 60-82

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.02.040

关键词

Reversed-phase liquid chromatography; Retention mechanisms; Molecular simulation; Molecular dynamics; Monte Carlo; Stationary phase structure

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE-0718383, CHE-1152998]
  2. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  3. Division Of Chemistry [1152776, 1152998, 1229354] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past 20 years, molecular simulation methods have been applied to the modeling of reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RPLC). The purpose of these simulations was to provide a molecular-level understanding of: (i) the structure and dynamics of the bonded phase and its interface with the mobile phase, (ii) the interactions of analytes with the bonded phase, and (iii) the retention mechanism for different analytes. However, the investigation of chromatographic systems poses significant challenges for simulations with respect to the accuracy of the molecular mechanics force fields and the efficiency of the sampling algorithms. This review discusses a number of aspects concerning molecular simulation studies of RPLC systems including the historical development of the subject, the background needed to understand the two prevalent techniques, molecular dynamics (MD) and Monte Carlo (MC) methods, and the wealth of insight provided by these sirriulations. Examples from the literature employing MD approaches and from the authors' laboratory using MC methods are discussed. The former can provide information on chain dynamics and transport properties, whereas the latter techniques are uniquely suited for the investigation of phase and sorption equilibria that underly RPLC retention, and both can be used to elucidate the bonded-chain conformations and solvent distributions. (C) 2013 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