4.6 Article

Chiral chromatography method screening strategies: Past, present and future

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1638, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2021.461878

关键词

Protocol; Ballistic; Heuristic; Rule-based; Machine-learning; Chiral; HPLC; SFC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Method screening is a crucial step in chromatographic method development for separating racemates. Various solutions and strategies have been proposed over the years to reduce the time spent on method screening, with some being adopted in practice and others remaining in academic literature. The main objective of this review is to revisit and compile the diverse set of solutions published in the last two decades for evaluating the adequacy of existing screening protocols in laboratories conducting chiral separations.
Method screening is an integral part of chromatographic method development for the separation of race-mates. Due to the highly complex retention mechanism of a chiral stationary-phase, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to device predefined method-development steps that can be successfully applied to a wide group of molecules. The standard approach is to evaluate or screen a series of stationary and mobile-phase combinations to increase the chances of detecting a suitable separation condition. Such a process is often the rate-limiting step for high-throughput analyses and purification workflows. To address the problem, several solutions and strategies have been proposed over the years for reduction of net method-screening time. Some of the strategies have been adopted in practice while others remained confined in the literature. The main objective of this review is to revisit, critically discuss and compile the solutions published over the last two decades. We expect that making the diverse set of solutions available in a single document will help assessing the adequacy of existing screening protocols in laboratories conducting chiral separation. (C) 2021 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