Solute-solvent interactions in micellar electrokinetic chromatography: IV. Characterization of electroosmotic flow and micellar markers

Fuguet, Elisabet; Ràfols, Clara; Bosch, Elisabeth; Rosés, Martı́

doi:10.1002/1522-2683(200201)23:1<56::aid-elps56>3.0.co;2-7

Cited by 45 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evans and Stalcup recommended NM as a suitable EOF marker for systems with sulfated CDs. In 2002, Fuguet et al investigated suitability of various EOF markers (DMSO, TU, formamide, DMF, methanol, acetone, ACN, propan‐1‐ol, tetrahydrofuran) for several micellar systems: SDS, lithium dodecyl sulfate, lithium perfluorooctane sulfonate, sodium cholate, sodium deoxycholate, tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide, and hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide. They stated that interactions of the EOF marker with the micelles are different in each system depending on the nature of the surfactant used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of effective mobilities of EOF markers in BGE containing sulfated β‐cyclodextrin by a two‐detector method

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A neutral marker of the EOF can gain a nonzero effective mobility because of its possible interaction with a charged complexing agent, such as a chiral selector in CE. We determined effective mobilities of four compounds often used as EOF markers (dimethyl sulfoxide, mesityl oxide, nitromethane, and thiourea) in the BGE-containing sulfated β-CD (60 g/L). All the compounds studied were measurably mobilized by their interaction with the selector. The highest effective mobility (-3.0·10(-9) m(2) s(-1) V(-1)) was observed for thiourea and the lowest (-1.5·10(-9) m(2) s(-1) V(-1)) for dimethyl sulfoxide and nitromethane. The mobilities were determined by a new two-detector pressure mobilization method (2d method), which we propose, and the results were confirmed by standard CE measurements. In the 2d method, one marker zone is situated in the BGE containing the charged selector, while the second marker zone is surrounded with a selector-free BGE, which prevents its complexation. The initial distance between the two marker zones equals the capillary length from the inlet to the first detector. After a brief voltage application, the final distance between the marker zones is determined based on known capillary length from the first to the second detector. The difference between these two distances determines the effective mobility.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of effective mobilities of EOF markers in BGE containing sulfated β‐cyclodextrin by a two‐detector method

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As expected, this value is lower than that shown in aqueous solution, 8.2 mM at 257C [9,10]. Methanol has been taken as the EOF marker [7] and effective electrophoretic mobilities for naphthalene in each separating solution have been calculated according to Eq. (1).…”

Section: Effect Of Methanol Content and Sds Concentrationmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…2). As recommended before [7], the most hydrophobic compounds, decanophenone and dodecanophenone, have been used as micellar markers. Figure 6 shows the quantity log (A 2 /A 1 ) vs. log k 2 , that gives, essentially, the same information than Log P o/w , m and log k are global measurements of hydrophobicity.…”

Section: Effect Of the Hydrophobicity Of The Analytementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Solute-solvent interactions in micellar electrokinetic chromatography: V. Factors that produce peak splitting

et al. 2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experimental conditions that produce analyte peak splitting in micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography (MEKC) have been systematically investigated. The system studied was a neutral phosphate buffer and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) micelles as pseudostationary phase. A number of analytes showing a wide variety of hydrophobicity values and several organic solvents as sample diluents have been tested. Peak splitting phenomena are mainly due to the presence of organic solvent in the sample solution. They increase with the hydrophobicity of the analyte and decrease with the increase of the surfactant concentration. When hydrophobic compounds are analyzed the suggested ways to avoid split peaks are: (i) the use of 1-propanol or 1-butanol as sample diluent instead of methanol or acetonitrile or (ii) the use of high concentration of surfactant in the separating solution when the analyte must be dissolved in pure methanol or acetonitrile.

show abstract

“…Thus, in MEKC and chiral separations the majority of the markers used are organic solvents. In MEKC, for example, methanol (MeOH) , formamide , acetone , ACN, DMSO, DMF, THF, thiourea, and 1‐propanol , but also water was used. In chiral separations propanone , MeOH, benzyl alcohol , ethanol , mesityloxide , and DMSO were applied to measure the EOF.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of electroosmotic markers in aqueous and nonaqueous capillary electrophoresis

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare some compounds as EOF markers in aqueous and non-aqueous background electrolytes AIMThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare some compounds as EOF markers in aqueous and non-aqueous background electrolytes (BGEs). Different electrolyte system as well as BGEs with chiral selectors and micellar additives has been investigated. Short Code 316301It is always necessary to know the electro-osmotic flow (EOF) and the reproducibility of the EOF during method Influence of pH and buffer type Sodium borate buffer Ammonium acetate buffer IntroductionShort Code 316301 (EOF) and the reproducibility of the EOF during method development or troubleshooting in CE and sometimes it can be important to more accurately determine the EOF. Sodium borate bufferAll markers seem to be useful in borate buffer except:All analytes seem to be useful in acetate buffer except:• MBD at pH 8.0 and 9.0 (lower µ obs than the other) • Diphenyloxazole at pH 8.0 and 9.0 The most common was to measure the EOF is through the injection of a neutral marker. x• Iohexol who is known to complexate with borate, and was used as a marker for complexation.• Anthracene that differed in borate buffer at pH 8, 9 and 10. obs • Diphenyloxazole at pH 8.0 and 9.0 As expected, the RSD(%) for µ obs for all markers within one pH is higher at pH 4-6 (1-4%) than for pH 8-9 (0.5-0.9 %) There is a lack of a more general comparative studies of EOF markers in the literature. The previously published comparative studies only include one aqueous system at a specific pH [1] and micellar systems [2].• Anthracene that differed in borate buffer at pH 8, 9 and 10.• MBD had a lower observed mobility (µ obs ) in borate buffer. Interestingly, the decrease is more pronounced at pH 10.pH is higher at pH 4-6 (1-4%) than for pH 8-9 (0.5-0.9 %)

show abstract

Solute-solvent interactions in micellar electrokinetic chromatography: IV. Characterization of electroosmotic flow and micellar markers

Cited by 45 publications

References 34 publications

Determination of effective mobilities of EOF markers in BGE containing sulfated β‐cyclodextrin by a two‐detector method

Determination of effective mobilities of EOF markers in BGE containing sulfated β‐cyclodextrin by a two‐detector method

Solute-solvent interactions in micellar electrokinetic chromatography: V. Factors that produce peak splitting

Evaluation of electroosmotic markers in aqueous and nonaqueous capillary electrophoresis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About