4.6 Article

Analytical Separation of Closantel Enantiomers by HPLC

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26237288

关键词

chiral stationary phase; closantel; enantiomeric separation; high-performance liquid chromatography; modifiers

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [32172908]
  2. Key Program of Guangzhou Science and Technology Plan [201804020019]
  3. Local Innovative and Research Teams Project of Guangdong Pearl River Talents Program [2019BT02N054]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, two enantiomeric separation methods of closantel were explored using normal-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. The enantiomers were successfully separated using novel chiral stationary phases, which can facilitate molecular pharmacological and biological research on closantel and its enantiomers.
Closantel is an antiparasitic drug marketed in a racemic form with one chiral center. It is meaningful to develop a method for separating and analyzing the closantel enantiomers. In this work, two enantiomeric separation methods of closantel were explored by normal-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. The influences of the chiral stationary phase (CSP) structure, the mobile phase composition, the nature and proportion of different mobile phase modifiers (alcohols and acids), and the column temperature on the enantiomeric separation of closantel were investigated in detail. The two enantiomers were successfully separated on the novel CSP of isopropyl derivatives of cyclofructan 6 and n-hexane-isopropanol-trifluoroacetic acid (97:3:0.1, v/v/v) as a mobile phase with a resolution (Rs) of about 2.48. The enantiomers were also well separated on the CSP of tris-carbamates of amylose with a higher Rs (about 3.79) when a mixture of n-hexane-isopropanol-trifluoroacetic acid (55:45:0.1, v/v/v) was used as mobile phase. Thus, the proposed separation methods can facilitate molecular pharmacological and biological research on closantel and its enantiomers.

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