4.6 Article

Development and evaluation of pulsed - Post column derivatization in liquid chromatography as a concept to minimize reagent consumption

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1690, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2023.463791

关键词

Pulsed -post column derivatization; Liquid chromatography; Automation; reagent consumption; robustness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, a new approach to reduce the consumption of reagents in liquid chromatography coupled to online post column derivatization is proposed. The proposed method, called Pulsed-Post Column Derivatization (Pulsed-PCD), introduces reagents as well-defined pulses at microliter levels. The robustness of the procedure was evaluated and the method was successfully applied to determine histidine in human urine.
In the current article, we propose an alternative approach to reduce the consumption of the reagents in liquid chromatography coupled to on-line post column derivatization. In our proposal post column reagents do not flow continuously but they are instead introduced as well-defined pulses (at microliter levels) that are merged on-line with the eluted analytes through precise tuning (Pulsed-Post Column Derivatization, Pulsed-PCD). The profiles of the pulses in terms of time and flow rate were investigated visually using caffeine as model compound (at 274 nm). The robustness of the procedure was evalu-ated by Monte Carlo simulations and was verified taking into account the precisions of typically used propulsion systems. As a proof of concept, we selected the determination of histidine in human urine af-ter separation by cation exchange chromatography and Pulsed-PCD derivatization with o-phthalaldehyde. The consumption of the derivatizing reagent was downscaled to the microliter level per run, while the analytical results were within the expected ranges (110 - 1520 mu mol L -1) and with good agreement with the corroborative method based on classic HPLC-PCD. (c) 2023 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