4.3 Article

Chiral Separation of the Clinically Important Compounds Fucose and Pipecolic Acid Using CE: Determination of the Most Effective Chiral Selector

期刊

CHIRALITY
卷 25, 期 9, 页码 556-560

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/chir.22170

关键词

capillary electrophoresis; pipecolic acid; fucose; enantioseparation; ionic liquids

资金

  1. Research Promotion Foundation [BILATERAL/CY-RO/0609/05]
  2. University of Cyprus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, simple electrophoretic methods were developed for the chiral separation of the clinically important compounds fucose and pipecolic acid. In recent years, these analytes, and particularly their individual enantiomers, have attracted considerable attention due to their role in biological functions and disorders. The detectability and sensitivity of pipecolic acid and fucose were improved by reacting them with fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl chloride (FMOC-Cl) and 5-amino-2-naphthalene-sulfonic acid (ANSA), respectively. The enantioseparation conditions were optimized by initially investigating the type of the chiral selector. Different chiral selectors, such as polymeric surfactants and cyclodextrins, were used and the most effective ones were determined with regard to resolution and analysis time. A 10-mM -cyclodextrin was able to separate the enantiomers of ANSA-DL-fucose and the polymeric surfactant poly(sodium N-undecanoyl-LL-leucine-valinate) was able to separate the enantiomers of FMOC-DL-pipecolic acid, with resolution values of 3.45 and 2.78, respectively. Additional parameters, such as the concentration and the pH of the background electrolyte (BGE), the concentration of the chiral selector, and the addition of modifiers were examined in order to optimize the separations. The addition of the chiral ionic liquid D-alanine tert-butyl ester lactate into the BGE was also investigated, for the first time, in order to improve resolution of the enantiomers. Chirality 25:556-560, 2013. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.3
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