1996
DOI: 10.1016/0731-7085(95)01661-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of liquid chromatography methods for the separation of ampicillin and its related substances

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, we could conclude that Peak 3 was an isomer of Peak 5. Considering that Peak 3 had a much shorter retention time than Peak 5, and with the comparison of related substances reported in the literature [ 1 ], Peak 3 was tentatively identified as L-ampicillin. Figure 5 showed the proposed MS fragmentation pathway for the fragmentation ions of L-ampicillin.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Therefore, we could conclude that Peak 3 was an isomer of Peak 5. Considering that Peak 3 had a much shorter retention time than Peak 5, and with the comparison of related substances reported in the literature [ 1 ], Peak 3 was tentatively identified as L-ampicillin. Figure 5 showed the proposed MS fragmentation pathway for the fragmentation ions of L-ampicillin.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Based on diagnostic ions ( m / z 324.1, 307.1, and 175.1) and comparison with the published literature of known related substances of ampicillin [ 10 ], Peak 1 and Peak 2 were identified as isomers of ampicilloic acid. (5S, 6R) or (5R, 6R) ampicilloic acids were the two groups of ampicilloic acid isomers which were reported to be the metabolites and degradation products of ampicillin [ 1 ]. According to the retention behavior in reversed-phase chromatography of Peak 1 and Peak 2 and the related literature [ 1 ], Peak 1 and Peak 2 were tentatively identified as (5S, 6R) ampicilloic acid and (5R, 6R) ampicilloic acid, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations