4.5 Article

Preparation and evaluation of open-tubular capillary column combining a metal-organic framework and a brush-shaped polymer for liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 41, 期 11, 页码 2347-2353

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201800121

关键词

capillary liquid chromatography; metal-organic frameworks; open-tubular capillary columns

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21475044]
  2. National Key Scientific Instrument and Equipment Development Project [2012YQ004403]
  3. National Key Technology RD Program [2015BAK44B00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, an open-tubular capillary liquid-phase column was prepared by modifying chain polymer on the inner surface of capillary and chemical bonding of metal organic frameworks, NH(2-)UiO-66, to the brushes of chain polymer (poly(glycidyl methacrylate)). Besides advantages of facial preparation and good permeability, the chain polymer effectively increases themodification amount of NH2-UiO-66 nanoparticles to increase the phase ratio of open-tubular capillary column and enhance the interactions with analytes. The results of scanning electron microscope energy-dispersive X-ray spectra indicated that NH2-UiO-66 nanoparticles were successfully bonded to the chain polymer. Because of the hydrophobic interaction and hydrogen bonding interaction between the analytes and the ligand of NH2-UiO-66, different analytes were well separated on the NH2-UiO-66-modified poly(glycidyl methacrylate) capillary (1.12 m x 25 mu m id x 365 mu m od) with the high absolute column efficiency reaching 121 477 plates, benefiting froman open-tubular column and low mass transfer resistance provided by polymer brush and metal-organic framework crystal. The relative standard deviations of the retention time for run-to-run, day-to-day, and column-to-column (n = 3) runs are below 4.28%, exhibiting good repeatability. Finally, the column was successfully applied to separation of flavonoids in licorice.

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

4.5
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