2015
DOI: 10.5935/0103-5053.20150256
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semi-Empirical Quantum Chemistry Method for Pre-Polymerization Rational Design of Ciprofloxacin Imprinted Polymer and Adsorption Studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The morphological differences could be due to variations that occur in the structure of the MIP during the template removal. The mag-MIPs seem to have created a larger number of micropores (< 2 nm diammeter) groups and less aggregates of mesopores (2-50 nm diammeter) and macropores (> 50 nm diammeter) [33]. According to the BET and BJH measurements [33], Mag-MIPs are more porous and granular than the control, which is confirmed by the difference in surface area between the two polymers, mag-MIPs have indeed a greater surface area (50.6 m 2 g − 1 ) than the mag-NIPs (26.7 m 2 g − 1 ), along with greater pore volume per mass for the mag-MIPs (25.5 dm 3 g − 1 ) than the mag-MIPs (13.4 dm 3 g − 1 ).…”
Section: Mag-mip Development and Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The morphological differences could be due to variations that occur in the structure of the MIP during the template removal. The mag-MIPs seem to have created a larger number of micropores (< 2 nm diammeter) groups and less aggregates of mesopores (2-50 nm diammeter) and macropores (> 50 nm diammeter) [33]. According to the BET and BJH measurements [33], Mag-MIPs are more porous and granular than the control, which is confirmed by the difference in surface area between the two polymers, mag-MIPs have indeed a greater surface area (50.6 m 2 g − 1 ) than the mag-NIPs (26.7 m 2 g − 1 ), along with greater pore volume per mass for the mag-MIPs (25.5 dm 3 g − 1 ) than the mag-MIPs (13.4 dm 3 g − 1 ).…”
Section: Mag-mip Development and Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The molecular mechanics studies were performed using the softwares HyperChem v. 8.0.5, OpenEye software package and VIDA v. 3.0.0 and the multiple minimum hypersurfaces with MOPAC program. Further details can be found in literature [33].…”
Section: Molecular Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cavity formed in MIP without dimethylamylamine serves for the adsorption of molecules that have the same structure and size as those cavities. The regular NIP structure shows that no specific binding sites are formed by dimethylamylamine template molecule, whereas the cavities formed in MIP are due to dimethylamylamine template molecule interacting with methacrylic acid polymers while NIP has no dimethylamylamine interaction with methacrylic acid polymers [20].…”
Section: Synthesis Of Polymersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6). A great way of evaluating the performance of the imprinted polymer is by calculating the imprinted factor (I) of a MIP relative to a NIP [32]. This parameter is measured by the partition coefficient (K P ), which is the ratio of the average number of molecules bound to the polymer cavities (Q) and the concentration of the free molecule in solution (C) as shown in Eq.…”
Section: Isotherm Adsorption Of Ag16 To the Polymersmentioning
confidence: 99%