1997
DOI: 10.1021/ac961231k
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Suppression of Electroosmotic Flow and Prevention of Wall Adsorption in Capillary Zone Electrophoresis Using Zwitterionic Surfactants

Abstract: Addition of zwitterionic surfactants such as dodecyldimethyl(3-sulfopropyl)ammonium hydroxide, hexadecyldimethyl(3-sulfopropyl)ammonium hydroxide, and coco (amidopropyl)hydroxyldimethylsulfobetaine (Rewoteric AM CAS U) to an electrophoretic buffer suppress the electroosmotic flow by 50-90%. Onset of suppression occurs at approximately the critical micelle concentration of the surfactant. CAS U effectively suppresses the electroosmotic flow over the pH range 3-12. Addition of 2 mM CAS U to the electrophoretic b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
129
2
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 121 publications
(139 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
7
129
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This effect may be due to a reduction in dyedye quenching reactions on the protein surface due to denaturation of the protein in the presence of detergent, or possibly to the creation of hydrophobic environments around the attached dye molecules which promote fluorescence. Unlike SDS, the presence of DAPS does not alter the electrophoretic mobility of the proteins; however, the electroosmotic flow was reduced approximately twofold as has been reported previously [24].…”
Section: Cze Analysissupporting
confidence: 78%
“…This effect may be due to a reduction in dyedye quenching reactions on the protein surface due to denaturation of the protein in the presence of detergent, or possibly to the creation of hydrophobic environments around the attached dye molecules which promote fluorescence. Unlike SDS, the presence of DAPS does not alter the electrophoretic mobility of the proteins; however, the electroosmotic flow was reduced approximately twofold as has been reported previously [24].…”
Section: Cze Analysissupporting
confidence: 78%
“…As shown in Tab. 2, efficiency obtained for kin17 peak in our conditions is not as high as that reported previously for cationic proteins using permanent or dynamic coating [33,34]. This can be attributed mainly to the low ionic strength of the running buffer we employed, in order to avoid a dissociating effect of the BGE on the kin17-ssDNA complex formed.…”
Section: Analysis With a Peo-coated Capillarycontrasting
confidence: 48%
“…Three basic proteins, ribonuclease A, cytochrome c and lysozyme were selected as model proteins due to their strong adsorption on the capillary wall, which results in bad efficiency, low protein recovery, and poor repeatability in migration time in common CE assay [13]. Generally speaking, an ideal coating for protein separation should exhibit high efficiency, good recovery and repeatability, retention of EOF, facility to apply, inexpensive, and availability over a wide range of buffer conditions [28,29]. Thus, we mainly focused on the performance of gemini dynamic coating in these aspects.…”
Section: Protein Separationmentioning
confidence: 99%