4.6 Article

Separation of enantiomers of chiral sulfoxides in high-performance liquid chromatography with cellulose-based chiral selectors using acetonitrile and acetonitrile-water mixtures as mobile phases

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1609, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460445

关键词

Chiral sulfoxides; Separation of enantiomers; Enantiomer separations in aqueous acetonitrile; Polysaccharide-based chiral selectors

资金

  1. RNSF-CNR (between Georgia and Italy) [04/02, 04/22, 04/53]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The separation of 14 chiral sulfoxides was systematically studied on 12 cellulose-based chiral columns in acetonitrile and acetonitrile-water mobile phases. Out of all monosubstituted methylphenylcarbamates of cellulose the one having a methyl moiety in position 3 showed more universal chiral resolving ability compared to 2- and 4-substituted derivatives. Out of disubstituted phenylcarbamates of cellulose the ones with methyl substituents showed higher enantiomer resolving ability compared to chloro-substituted ones and substitution in positions 3 of the phenyl moiety was clearly advantageous. From disubstituted derivatives those possessing a combination of methyl- and chloro-substituents were advantageous compared to the ones having dimethyl- or dichloro-substituents. Chiral recognition ability of most chiral selectors towards studied sulfoxides was higher in pure acetonitrile compared to previously studied methanol. The effect of water addition to the mobile phase on analyte retention and enantioseparation was also quite different from that observed with methanol. In particular, with aqueous methanol by increasing the water content in the mobile phase retention increased in most cases and the separation factor improved. In contrast, with aqueous acetonitrile retention and separation factors decreased up to a certain water content in the mobile phase and then started to recover again for most of the studied analytes. (C) 2019 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