4.7 Article

Cellulose phenylcarbamate-derived hybrid bead-type chiral packing materials for efficient chiral recognition

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 347-358

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-020-03514-x

关键词

Chiral recognition; Enantioseparation; Chiral packing materials; Chiral separation; HPLC; Hybrid bead

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51673052, 51603054, 21474024]
  2. Daicel Corporation (Tokyo, Japan)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers developed eight organic-inorganic hybrid bead-type chiral packing materials with high organic contents using a modified Stober process in basic conditions. The preparation conditions significantly affected the organic contents and morphology of the hybrid materials, with those having higher organic content showing better enantioseparation ability.
For efficient enantioseparation, eight organic-inorganic hybrid bead-type chiral packing materials (CPMs) with high organic contents have been developed using cellulose tris(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamates) bearing small amount of 3-(triethoxysilyl)propyl groups and tetraethyl orthosilicate by a modified Stober process in the basic condition. The hybrid beads could be formed more efficiently in the basic condition without using surfactant, compared to that in the acidic condition. The preparation conditions, including type and amount of catalyst, amount of water and temperature, significantly affected the organic contents and morphology of the hybrid CPMs. Their chiral recognition properties were then examined by high-performance liquid chromatography. The obtained hybrid CPMs with a higher organic content possessed better enantioseparation ability than the traditional CPMs and previous analogue derived from the acidic condition. For some racemates, the hybrid CPMs exhibited even higher enantioselectivity than the commercial Chiralpak IB N, which is one of the most powerful immobilized-type CPMs and prepared from cellulose tris(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate). [GRAPHICS] .

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

4.7
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