4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Amino-functionalized monolithic poly(glycidyl methacrylate-codivinylbenzene) ion-exchange stationary phases for the separation of oligonucleoticles

期刊

CHROMATOGRAPHIA
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 S31-S36

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1365/s10337-005-0607-7

关键词

column liquid chromatography; micro-LC; ion-exchange chromatography; monolithic stationary phases; glycidyl methacrylate; oligonucleotides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monolithic capillary columns were prepared by thermal initiated copolymerization of glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) and divinylbenzene (DVB) inside silanized 200 mu m i.d. fused silica capillaries. Polymerization mixtures containing different amounts of porogen (I-decanol and tetrahydrofuran (THF)) and different ratios of monomer and crosslinker were used for synthesis. For characterization the pore size distribution profiles of the resulting monoliths were determined by mercury intrusion porosimetry. The morphology of the copolymer was investigated by scanning electron micrographs (SEM). A high linear dependence between flow rate and pressure drop was achieved which indicates that the polymer is pressure-stable even at high flow rates. After characterization the produced GMA-DVB monoliths, which contain reactive epoxide groups, were modified by reaction with diethylamine to obtain a poly(3-diethylamino-2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate-co-divinyl benzene) ion-exchange monolithic stationary phase. The synthesized monoliths contain ionizable amino groups that are useful for anion-exchange chromatography (AEC). Poly(3-diethylamino-2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate-co-divinylbenzene) monolithic columns allowed a fast and highly efficient separation of a homologous series of phosphorylated oligothymidylic acids [d(pT)(12-18)]. Since durability is an important parameter of chromatographic column characterization, the separation performance for d(pT)(12-18) in a freshly produced capillary column and on the same column after 100 chromatographic runs was compared.

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

4.2
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