2019
DOI: 10.1155/2019/7930102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preparation of Restricted Access Media-Molecularly Imprinted Polymers for the Detection of Chloramphenicol in Bovine Serum

Abstract: Chloramphenicol-(CAP-) restricted access media-molecularly imprinted polymers (CAP-RAM-MIPs) were prepared by precipitation polymerization using CAP as a template molecule, 2-diethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DEAEM) as a functional monomer, ethylene glycol dimethyl acrylate (EDMA) as a crosslinking agent, glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) as an outer hydrophilic functional monomer, and acetonitrile as a pore former and solvent. e CAP-RAM-MIPs were successfully characterized by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
2

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(31 reference statements)
0
3
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The specific surface area of the poly(GMA‐ co ‐EDMA) microspheres was measured to be 23.24 m 2 /g, while the specific surface area of the MIP was found to be 8.55 m 2 /g. The difference in surface area and pore size and volume between the poly(GMA‐ co ‐EDMA) microspheres and MIP is likely related to the imprinting effect [35].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The specific surface area of the poly(GMA‐ co ‐EDMA) microspheres was measured to be 23.24 m 2 /g, while the specific surface area of the MIP was found to be 8.55 m 2 /g. The difference in surface area and pore size and volume between the poly(GMA‐ co ‐EDMA) microspheres and MIP is likely related to the imprinting effect [35].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6 a that MIPs reached an equilibrium within 60 min. This is because the recognition sites produced by the surface imprinting are distributed on the polymer surface and therefore they are highly accessible and mass transfer resistance is low, which allow to achieve an adsorption equilibrium 26 .
Figure 6 ( a ) Adsorption kinetics of MIP/NIP and ( b ) adsorption curves for analytes at different concentrations (10–30 µg/mL).
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The specificity of MIP is often evaluated based on the partition coefficient, selectivity coefficient, and relative selectivity coefficient calculated by Eqs. ( 2 )–( 5 ): where IF is the imprinting factor, K d is the distribution coefficient, K is the selectivity coefficient of MIP and NIP for l -cysteine, K d1 is the partition coefficient of l -cysteine, K d2 is the partition coefficient of competitors, and K ʹ is the relative selectivity coefficient 26 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variasi jumlah crosslinker dapat mempengaruhi selektivitas MIP yang ditunjukkan oleh nilai persen ekstraksi yang diperoleh [18]. Pengaruh jumlah crosslinker yang digunakan pada sintesis MIP juga dapat mempengaruhi nilai kemampuan adsorpsi MIP-CAP [19]. Kinerja adsorben MIP-CAP dapat dilihat dari nilai kemampuan adsorpsi, sehingga pada penelitian ini memiliki tujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh jumlah crosslinker pada sintesis MIP terhadap kemampuan adsorpsi CAP dan persen ekstraksi dari variasi jumlah EGDMA, menganalisis serta membandingkan keberadaan gugus NO2 pada polimer terbaik.…”
Section: Pendahuluanunclassified