4.6 Article

Capillary electrochromatography using continuous-bed columns of sol-gel bonded silica particles with mixed-mode octadecyl and propylsulfonic acid functional groups

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 887, 期 1-2, 页码 265-275

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(99)01196-6

关键词

sol-gel; stationary phases, CEC; electrochromatography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Continuous-bed columns containing sol-gel bonded 3 mu m silica particles with mixed-mode octadecyl and propylsulfonic acid functional groups (ODS/SCX) were prepared by first packing the ODS/SCX particles into a fused-silica capillary, then filling the packed capillary with a siliceous sol-gel, curing the sol-gel, and finally drying the column with supercritical carbon dioxide. The performance of the sol-gel bonded ODS/SCX columns was evaluated for capillary electrochromatography using acetonitrile aqueous mobile phase containing phosphate buffer. The columns were mechanically strong and permeable. Both EOF velocity and current increased Linearly with elevation of the applied electric field strength. The EOF velocity was high at low pH and nearly constant over a range of pH 2-9. Higher buffer concentration resulted in higher current and lower EOF velocity. The acetonitrile content had no significant effect on the EOF. Without thermosetting the column, no bubble formation was noticed with currents up to 2.5 mu A. The minimum plate height of a 25/34 cmX75 mu m I.D. sol-gel bonded 3 mu m ODS/SCX column was 5.7 mu m (1.75X10(5) plates per meter) at an optimum EOF velocity of 0.92 mm s(-1). Mixtures Of test aromatic compounds and aromatic hydrocarbon homologues gave symmetrical peaks when using a low pH mobile phase. The retention and elution order of aromatic compounds represented a typical reversed-phase separation mechanism similar to conventional ODS columns. The run-to-run and column-to-column retention factor reproducibility was better than 2.5% and 8.0% RSD, respectively. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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