Premium
Preparation of ( S )‐ibuprofen‐imprinted polymer and its molecular recognition study
Author(s) -
Hung ChinYin,
Huang YunTzu,
Huang HanHung,
Hwang ChingChiang
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
journal of applied polymer science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.575
H-Index - 166
eISSN - 1097-4628
pISSN - 0021-8995
DOI - 10.1002/app.24575
Subject(s) - ethylene glycol dimethacrylate , ibuprofen , naproxen , methacrylic acid , molecularly imprinted polymer , chromatography , high performance liquid chromatography , acetic acid , acetonitrile , chemistry , selectivity , ethylene glycol , detection limit , triethylamine , monomer , polymer , organic chemistry , medicine , catalysis , alternative medicine , pathology , pharmacology
Two molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) were prepared using ( S )‐ibuprofen as the template molecule as well as methacrylic acid (MAA) or 4‐vinylpyridine and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) as the functional monomer and crosslinker, respectively. Free radical polymerization was carried out at 4°C under ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The MIPs thus obtained were ground into 25–44 μm, which were slurry packed into analytical columns. The template molecules were removed by acetic acid/methanol solution (1:9, v/v). high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), with UV detection, was used to evaluate the binding performance of the MIP for the template. The selectivity of ( S )‐ibuprofen and naproxen on the host–guest system were assessed using acetonitrile‐based mobile phases. The limits of detection of ibuprofen and naproxen were found to be 0.1844 mmol/L and 0.3264 mmol/L, while the limits of quantitation were 0.6262 mmol/L and 1.0909 mmol/L, respectively. The stationary phase was applied successfully to the commercial tablet analysis. Ibuprofen and naproxen were extracted from tablets with acetonitrile; analysis results showed a good relative standard deviation (RSD) of 0.81–1.24% and accuracy from −4.01 to +2.98% for ibuprofen as well as an RSD of 0.59–0.86% and accuracy from −4.01 to −2.01% for naproxen. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 102: 2972–2979, 2006