4.6 Article

Chiral hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks used as a chiral stationary phase for chiral separation in gas chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1675, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2022.463150

关键词

Capillary column; Hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks; Chiral stationary phase; Chiral separation

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2019YFA0904104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks (HOFs) are porous crystalline materials constructed by hydrogen bond interaction, which have shown great potential as stationary phases in gas chromatography. By applying HOF to a coated capillary column, high-resolution separation of various analytes, especially racemates, has been achieved with excellent repeatability and reproducibility.
Hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks (HOFs) are two dimensional (2D) or three dimensional (3D) porous crystalline materials constructed by Hydrogen bond interaction. In recent years, a variety of functional HOF materials have been successfully synthesized and used in structural identification, environmental pollutant removal, chiral resolution, drug delivery, fluorescence sensing, etc. Here, we first reported that a HOF to coated capillary column for high-resolution gas chromatographic separation of a wide range of analytes, including n-alkanes, n-alcohols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and positional isomers, especially for racemates, the HOFs column showed excellent separation repeatability and reproducibility. The relative standard deviation (RSD) values for the retention times were in the range of 0.37-2.43% for run to run (n = 3), 0.38-2.51% for day-to-day (n = 3), and 0.31-2.54% for column-to-column (n = 3), respectively. Moreover, we applied density-functional theory to calculate the adsorption of enantiomers in HOF structures. This work proved that the HOFs had great application prospects as stationary phase in gas chromatography. (C) 2022 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