These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Chiral separations of cathinone and amphetamine-derivatives: Comparative study between capillary electrochromatography, supercritical fluid chromatography and three liquid chromatographic modes.
    Author: Albals D, Heyden YV, Schmid MG, Chankvetadze B, Mangelings D.
    Journal: J Pharm Biomed Anal; 2016 Mar 20; 121():232-243. PubMed ID: 26732882.
    Abstract:
    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 (CSPs), 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 CSPs 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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]