Premium
Chiral separations in capillary high‐performance liquid chromatography and nonaqueous capillary electrochromatography using helically chiral poly(diphenyl‐2‐pyridylmethyl methacrylate) as chiral stationary phase
Author(s) -
Krause Kerstin,
Chankvetadze Bezhan,
Okamoto Yoshio,
Blaschke Gottfried
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
electrophoresis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.666
H-Index - 158
eISSN - 1522-2683
pISSN - 0173-0835
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1522-2683(19990901)20:13<2772::aid-elps2772>3.0.co;2-k
Subject(s) - capillary electrochromatography , chromatography , capillary action , high performance liquid chromatography , methacrylate , chemistry , phase (matter) , electrochromatography , analyte , chiral column chromatography , analytical chemistry (journal) , capillary electrophoresis , polymer , materials science , copolymer , organic chemistry , composite material
Enantioseparations in nonaqueous capillary electrochromatography (CEC) are reported in this study for the first time, using wide‐pore aminopropyl silica gel coated with helically chiral poly(diphenyl‐2‐pyridylmethyl methacrylate) (PDPM) as chiral stationary phase (CSP). The anodic electroosmotic flow (EOF) in a methanolic solution of ammonium acetate was used for the migration of neutral analytes through the packed bed in the capillaries. Four different techniques, high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in common‐size columns, capillary HPLC, pressure‐assisted CEC and CEC were compared from the viewpoint of separation parameters. The latter three were performed with the same experimental setup, varying the relative contribution of the pressure‐driven and the electrically driven flow to the overall mobility of the analyte. Capillary HPLC offers clear advantages compared to enantioseparations in common‐size columns. However, for a given particle size of the packing material, CEC was not obviously advantageous compared to pressure‐driven separations.