4.5 Article

Comparison of monolithic silica and polymethacrylate capillary columns for LC

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 27, 期 10-11, 页码 789-800

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.200401778

关键词

monolithic columns; capillary HPLC; column testing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organic polymer monolithic capillary columns were prepared in fused-silica capillaries by radical co-polymerization of ethylene dimethacrylate and butyl methacrylate monomers with azobisisobutyronitrile as initiator of the polymerization reaction in the presence of various amounts of porogenic solvent mixtures and different concentration ratios of monomers and 1-propanol, 1,4-butanediol, and water. The chromatographic properties of the organic polymer monolithic columns were compared with those of commercial silica-based particulate and monolithic capillary and analytical HPLC columns. The tests included the determination of H-u curves, column permeabilities, pore distribution by inversed-SEC measurements, methylene and polar selectivities, and polar interactions with naphthalenesulphonic acid test samples. Organic polymer monolithic capillary columns show similar retention behaviour to chemically bonded alkyl silica columns for compounds with different polarities characterized by interaction indices, I-x, but have lower methylene selectivities and do not show polar interactions with sulphonic acids. The commercial capillary and analytical silica gel-based monolithic columns showed similar selectivities and provided symmetrical peaks, indicating no significant surface heterogeneities. To allow accurate characterization of the properties of capillary monolithic columns, the experimental data should be corrected for extra-column contributions. With 0.3 mm ID capillary columns, corrections for extra-column volume contributions are sufficient, but to obtain true information on the efficiency of 0.1 mm ID capillary columns, the experimental bandwidths should be corrected for extra-column contributions to peak broadening.

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