4.6 Article

Separation of terbutaline enantiomers in capillary electrophoresis with cyclodextrin-type chiral selectors and investigation of structure of selector-selectand complexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1571, 期 -, 页码 231-239

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2018.08.012

关键词

Capillary electrophoresis; Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy; Terbutaline; Cyclodextrins; Enantioseparations

资金

  1. Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation (RNSF) of Georgia [217642]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The affinity pattern of terbutaline enantiomers towards various cyclodextrins was studied using capillary electrophoresis. The affinity pattern of terbutaline enantiomers was the same towards all studied cyclodextrins except heptakis(2-O-methyl-3,6-di-O-sulfo)-beta-CD. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy was used for understanding of fine structural mechanisms of interactions of beta-cyclodextrin and its two sulfated derivatives with the enantiomers of terbutaline. The structure of terbutaline complexes with all 3 cyclodextrins studied was different from each other. In confirmation with our earlier studies it was shown again that capillary electrophoresis represents very sensitive technique for studies of affinity patterns in cyclodextrin complexes with chiral guests. Other instrumental (e.g. NMR spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction analysis) and theoretical techniques, although very useful for obtaining the information regarding the stoichiometry, binding constants and structure of intermolecular complexes, as well as about the forces involved in selector-selectand binding and chiral recognition, may sometimes fail to properly sense those fine differences in the affinity patterns. Therefore, it is recommended to use capillary electrophoresis in order to examine correctness of affinity pattern determined for intermolecular complexes of cyclodextrins with guest molecules by other instrumental or computation techniques. (C) 2018 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