1994
DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9673(94)89142-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diastereomeric and enantiomeric separation of monoesters prepared from meso-cyclopentanediols and racemic carboxylic acids on a silica phase and on amylose and cellulose chiral stationary phases

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
7
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
6
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The same variations of retention are observed when 1-propanol is used. This result is consistent with a decreasing ability of the solvent to displace the solute from the CSP, due to a decrease of the solvent polarity [14,15]. As illustrated in Figure 2, the change in the mobile phase modifier from ethanol to 1-propanol results in a k increase of less than 25% whereas the enantioselectivity remains constant and the resolution decreases less than 10%, except for 4 with a supplementary NH group whose resolution increases by 70% (while enantioselectivity remains constant); selective interactions seem to be unaffected by the polarity of the organic modifier.…”
Section: Influence Of the Mobile Phase Compositionsupporting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The same variations of retention are observed when 1-propanol is used. This result is consistent with a decreasing ability of the solvent to displace the solute from the CSP, due to a decrease of the solvent polarity [14,15]. As illustrated in Figure 2, the change in the mobile phase modifier from ethanol to 1-propanol results in a k increase of less than 25% whereas the enantioselectivity remains constant and the resolution decreases less than 10%, except for 4 with a supplementary NH group whose resolution increases by 70% (while enantioselectivity remains constant); selective interactions seem to be unaffected by the polarity of the organic modifier.…”
Section: Influence Of the Mobile Phase Compositionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…When ethanol is replaced by 1-propanol, a decrease in the retention factors k, enantioselectivity a, and resolution R s is obtained. This unusual effect confirms that, for this solute, the retention mechanism does not depend on hydrogen bonding [15,32]. Use of 2-propanol instead of 1-propanol results in an increase in k for all solutes.…”
Section: Influence Of the Mobile Phase Compositionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…As expected from the higher polarity of ethanol compared with 2-propanol (Kunath et al, 1994), an increase in the retention factor, k, was observed on changing the mobile phase modifier from ethanol (eluents N, O and P) to 2-propanol (eluents Q, R and S). For example, on Chiralcel OD-H the parameters (k, α, R S ) obtained with pronucleotide 2 were 1.35, 1.11, n.r.…”
Section: Effects Of the Mobile Phase On Retention And Stereoselectivitysupporting
confidence: 62%
“…Separation of compounds by chiral HPLC is now well established with over 100 different chiral stationary phases (CSP) commercially available. Among them cellulose and amylose ester and carbamate derivatives coated onto large pore silica gel backbones have proved to be extremely useful stationary phases for chiral resolution (Shibukawa and Nakagawa, 1989;Okamoto and Kaida, 1994;Liu et al, 1994;Aboul-Enein et al, 1994;Kunath et al, 1994, Kirkland, 1995Oguni et al, 1995;Okamoto and Yashima, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results were due likely to the steric differences between the two solvent molecules, leading to quite different chiral surfaces on the stationary phases. 27,29 From these results, we concluded that the addition of a polar additive was essential to obtain satisfactory enantioselectivity for OPs and the selection of the additive depended not only on the compound tested but also on the column used. …”
Section: Influence Of Mobile Phase Compositionmentioning
confidence: 97%