...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis: An International Journal on All Drug-Related Topics in Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Clinical Analysis >Chiral separations of cathinone and amphetamine-derivatives: Comparative study between capillary electrochromatography, supercritical fluid chromatography and three liquid chromatographic modes
【24h】

Chiral separations of cathinone and amphetamine-derivatives: Comparative study between capillary electrochromatography, supercritical fluid chromatography and three liquid chromatographic modes

机译:卡西酮和苯丙胺衍生物的手性分离:毛细管电色谱,超临界流体色谱和三种液相色谱模式的比较研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The screening part of an earlier defined chiral separation strategy in capillary electrochromatography (CEC) was used for the separation of ten cathinone- and amphetamine derivatives. They were analyzed using 4 polysaccharide-based chiral stationary phases (CSP5), containing cellulose tris(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) (ODRH), amylose tris(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) (ADH), amylose tris(5-chloro-2-methylphenylcarbamate) (LA2), and cellulose tris(4-chloro-3-methylphenylcarbamate) (LC4) as chiral selectors. After applying the screening to each compound, ADH and LC4 showed the highest success rate. In a second part of the study, a comparison between CEC and other analytical techniques used for chiral separations i.e., supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC), polar organic solvent chromatography (POSC), reversed-phase (RPLC) and normal-phase liquid chromatography (NPLC), was made. For this purpose, earlier defined screening approaches for each technique were applied to separate the 10 test substances. This allowed an overall comparison of the success rates of the screening steps of the 5 techniques for these compounds. The results showed that CEC had a similar enantioselectivity rate as NPLC and RPLC, producing the highest number of separations (9 out of 10 racemates). SFC resolved 7 compounds, while POSC gave only 2 separations. On the other hand, the baseline separation success rates for NPLC and RPLC was better than for CEC. For a second comparison, the same chiral stationary phases as in the CEC screening were also tested with all techniques at their specific screening conditions, which allowed a direct comparison of the performance of CEC versus the same CSP5 in the other techniques. This comparison revealed that RPLC was able to separate all tested compounds, and also produced the highest number of baseline separations on the CSP that were used in the CEC screening step. CEC and NPLC showed the same success rate: nine out of ten substances were separated. When CEC and NPLC are combined, separation of the ten compounds can be achieved. SFC and POSC resolved eight and three compounds, respectively. POSC was the least attractive option as it expressed only limited enantioselectivity toward these compounds. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:毛细管电色谱(CEC)中较早定义的手性分离策略的筛选部分用于分离十种卡西酮和苯丙胺衍生物。使用4种基于多糖的手性固定相(CSP5)对它们进行了分析,其中包含纤维素三(3,5-二甲基苯基氨基甲酸酯),直链淀粉三(3,5-二甲基苯基氨基甲酸酯)(ADH),直链淀粉三(5-氯-2) -甲基苯基氨基甲酸酯)(LA2)和纤维素三(4-氯-3-甲基苯基氨基甲酸酯)(LC4)作为手性选择剂。对每种化合物进行筛选后,ADH和LC4的成功率最高。在研究的第二部分中,比较了CEC和用于手性分离的其他分析技术,即超临界流体色谱(SFC),极性有机溶剂色谱(POSC),反相(RPLC)和正相液相色谱( NPLC)。为此,对每种技术采用了较早定义的筛选方法以分离出10种测试物质。这样就可以对这些化合物的5种技术的筛选步骤的成功率进行总体比较。结果表明,CEC的对映选择性与NPLC和RPLC相似,产生最多的分离数(10个外消旋体中有9个)。 SFC分离出7种化合物,而POSC仅分离了2种。另一方面,NPLC和RPLC的基线分离成功率要优于CEC。为了进行第二次比较,还使用所有技术在其特定的筛选条件下测试了与CEC筛选相同的手性固定相,从而可以直接比较CEC与其他技术中相同CSP5的性能。该比较表明,RPLC能够分离所有测试的化合物,并且在CEC筛选步骤中使用的CSP上产生的基线分离数量最高。 CEC和NPLC的成功率相同:十分之九的物质被分离出来。当CEC和NPLC结合使用时,可以实现十种化合物的分离。 SFC和POSC分别解析了8种和3种化合物。 POSC是最没有吸引力的选择,因为它仅对这些化合物表现出有限的对映选择性。 (C)2015 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号