Specific Features of the Retention of Lutein Diesters on C16 Stationary Phases with Different Pore Diameters

V. I. Deineka; Дейнека В. И.; S. M. Staroverov; Староверов С. М.; G. G. Vasiyarov; Васияров Г. Г.; T. G. Burzhinskaya; Буржинская Т. Г.; I. P. Blinova; Блинова И. П.

doi:10.31857/S0044453723080034

Specific Features of the Retention of Lutein Diesters on C16 Stationary Phases with Different Pore Diameters

Autores: Deineka V.I.¹, Staroverov S.M.²^,3, Vasiyarov G.G.³, Burzhinskaya T.G.¹, Blinova I.P.¹
Afiliações:
1. Belgorod State National Research University
2. Moscow State University
3. AO BioKhimMak ST
Edição: Volume 97, Nº 8 (2023)
Páginas: 1192-1195
Seção: PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY OF SEPARATION PROCESSES. CHROMATOGRAPHY
##submission.dateSubmitted##: 27.02.2025
##submission.datePublished##: 01.08.2023
URL: https://rjeid.com/0044-4537/article/view/668688
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0044453723080034
EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QTRNXE
ID: 668688

Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado

Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado

Acesso é pago ou somente para assinantes

Resumo
Sobre autores
Bibliografia
Arquivos suplementares
Estatísticas

Resumo

It is shown that the column dead time determined from the retention of uracil is longer than the one determined from the retention of homologs—lutein diesters—for C16 reversed phases on three columns with sorbents with different pore diameters (80, 110, and 160 Å). This finding confirms the familiar assumption that the sorbate molecules 10% larger than the pore diameter can cause problems with the retention of the sorbate. It is found for smaller molecules (of alkyl benzoates) that the dead time determined from the retention of uracil is less than the one determined from the retention of the homologs on the same stationary phases, confirming that the main cause of the observed effect is the size factor.

Palavras-chave

retention features, dead time, sorbent pore diameter, lutein diesters, uracil, alkyl benzoates

Bibliografia

Verzele M., Mussche P. // J. Chromatogr. 1983. V. 254. P. 117.
Kimata K., Iwaguchi K., Onishi S. et al. // J. Chromatogr. Sci. 1989. V. 27. P. 721.
Walters M.J. // J. Assoc. Anal. Chem. 1987. V. 70. P. 465.
Godinho J.M., Naese J.A., Toler A.E. et al. // J. Chromatogr. A. 2020. V. 1634. 461678.
Žuvela P., Skoczylas M., Liu J.J. et al. // Chem. Rev. 2019. V. 119. P. 3674.
Lesellier E., West C., Tchapla A. // J. Chromat. A. 2006. V. 1111. P. 62.
Ligor M., Kováčova J., Gadzała‑Kopciuch R.M. et al. // Chromatogr. 2014. V. 77. P. 1047.
Дейнека В.И., Староверов С.М., Васияров Г.Г. и др. // Сорбционные и хроматографические процессы. 2021. Т. 21. № 6. С. 819.
Schuster S.A., Henry R.A. // LCGC North America. 2018. V. 36. P. 134.
Zdravkov B.D., Čermák J.J., Šefara M. et al. // Central Eur. J. Chem. 2007. V. 5. P. 385.
Horvat G., Pantić M., Knez Ž. et al. // Gels. 2022. V. 8. P. 438.
Kaneko K. // J. Membrane Sci. 1994. V. 96. P. 59.
Дейнека В.И., Дейнека Л.А., Сидоров А.Н. и др. // Физикохимия поверхности и защита материалов 2017. Т. 53. С. 262.
Дейнека В.И., БуржинскаяТ.Г., Дейнека Л.А. // Сорбционные и хроматографические процессы. 2022. Т. 22. № 4. С. 393.
Лапшова М.С., Дейнека В.И., Дейнека Л.А. и др. // Журн. аналит. химии. 2013. Т. 68. С. 1130.