plrp s polymeric stationary phase Search Results


polymeric stationary phase  (Agilent technologies)
98
Agilent technologies polymeric stationary phase
Figure 1. <t>Stationary</t> phase stability: efficiency loss as a function of time of purge with an aggressive mobile phase (analyte: acenaphthene; mobile phase: triethylamine, pH 10; 50 mM at 508C). Figure reprinted with permission from reference (16). Figure 2. Results of accelerated base stability testing for six stationary phases, showing percent change of retention factor (k) for decanophenone versus exposure time (h) to aqueous sodium hydroxide (20 mM; pH 12.3) at 508C. The stationary phases were purged at 0.85 mL/min for 1.8 h, washed for 10 min at 0.43 mL/min. Mobile phase: acetonitrile/water, 50:50 v/v. Columns: XTerra MS C18 (50 3 mm), Gemini C18 and Xbridge C18 (50 4.6); all other columns 30 3 mm. Figure reprinted with permission from reference (17).
Polymeric Stationary Phase, supplied by Agilent technologies, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 98/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/plrp+s+polymeric+stationary+phase/PLRP-S/pm25609601-113-8-13
Average 98 stars, based on 1 article reviews
polymeric stationary phase - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
98/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


Figure 1. Stationary phase stability: efficiency loss as a function of time of purge with an aggressive mobile phase (analyte: acenaphthene; mobile phase: triethylamine, pH 10; 50 mM at 508C). Figure reprinted with permission from reference (16). Figure 2. Results of accelerated base stability testing for six stationary phases, showing percent change of retention factor (k) for decanophenone versus exposure time (h) to aqueous sodium hydroxide (20 mM; pH 12.3) at 508C. The stationary phases were purged at 0.85 mL/min for 1.8 h, washed for 10 min at 0.43 mL/min. Mobile phase: acetonitrile/water, 50:50 v/v. Columns: XTerra MS C18 (50 3 mm), Gemini C18 and Xbridge C18 (50 4.6); all other columns 30 3 mm. Figure reprinted with permission from reference (17).

Journal: Journal of chromatographic science

Article Title: Silica, Hybrid Silica, Hydride Silica and Non-Silica Stationary Phases for Liquid Chromatography. Part II: Chemical and Thermal Stability.

doi: 10.1093/chromsci/bmu173

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 1. Stationary phase stability: efficiency loss as a function of time of purge with an aggressive mobile phase (analyte: acenaphthene; mobile phase: triethylamine, pH 10; 50 mM at 508C). Figure reprinted with permission from reference (16). Figure 2. Results of accelerated base stability testing for six stationary phases, showing percent change of retention factor (k) for decanophenone versus exposure time (h) to aqueous sodium hydroxide (20 mM; pH 12.3) at 508C. The stationary phases were purged at 0.85 mL/min for 1.8 h, washed for 10 min at 0.43 mL/min. Mobile phase: acetonitrile/water, 50:50 v/v. Columns: XTerra MS C18 (50 3 mm), Gemini C18 and Xbridge C18 (50 4.6); all other columns 30 3 mm. Figure reprinted with permission from reference (17).

Article Snippet: Teutenberg et al. (42) have shown that a polymeric stationary phase (PLRP-S from Polymer Laboratories) exhibited less bleeding than zirconium dioxide and graphitized carbon stationary phases, as shown in Figure 14, where detection was carried out using a charged aerosol detector (CAD).

Techniques:

Figure 5. Effect of buffer type on stationary phase stability. (A) Phosphate buffer, (a) initial, (b) after 1,060 mL and (c) after 3,540 mL. (B) Tris, (a) initial, (b) after 1,420 mL and (c) 3,600 mL. (C) Citrate, (a) initial, (b) after 2,740 mL and (c) after 4,120 mL. (D) HEPES, (a) initial, (b) after 1,360 mL and (c) 5,210 mL. Column: Zorbax SB-CN 150 4.6 mm. The columns were purged with acetonitrile/phosphate buffer (pH 7; 250 mM; 20:80 v/v) at 608C using a flow rate of 1 mL/min. Before testing, the column was first flushed with at least 20 column volumes of methanol/water (60:40), before equilibration with 20 column volumes of phosphate buffer (pH 7; 250 mM; 20:80 v/v). Evaluation performed for tricyclic antidepressants: 1 ¼ uracil, 2 ¼ doxepin, 3 ¼ trimipramine, 4 ¼ amitriptyline, 5 ¼ nortriptyline. Figure reprinted with permission from reference (24).

Journal: Journal of chromatographic science

Article Title: Silica, Hybrid Silica, Hydride Silica and Non-Silica Stationary Phases for Liquid Chromatography. Part II: Chemical and Thermal Stability.

doi: 10.1093/chromsci/bmu173

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 5. Effect of buffer type on stationary phase stability. (A) Phosphate buffer, (a) initial, (b) after 1,060 mL and (c) after 3,540 mL. (B) Tris, (a) initial, (b) after 1,420 mL and (c) 3,600 mL. (C) Citrate, (a) initial, (b) after 2,740 mL and (c) after 4,120 mL. (D) HEPES, (a) initial, (b) after 1,360 mL and (c) 5,210 mL. Column: Zorbax SB-CN 150 4.6 mm. The columns were purged with acetonitrile/phosphate buffer (pH 7; 250 mM; 20:80 v/v) at 608C using a flow rate of 1 mL/min. Before testing, the column was first flushed with at least 20 column volumes of methanol/water (60:40), before equilibration with 20 column volumes of phosphate buffer (pH 7; 250 mM; 20:80 v/v). Evaluation performed for tricyclic antidepressants: 1 ¼ uracil, 2 ¼ doxepin, 3 ¼ trimipramine, 4 ¼ amitriptyline, 5 ¼ nortriptyline. Figure reprinted with permission from reference (24).

Article Snippet: Teutenberg et al. (42) have shown that a polymeric stationary phase (PLRP-S from Polymer Laboratories) exhibited less bleeding than zirconium dioxide and graphitized carbon stationary phases, as shown in Figure 14, where detection was carried out using a charged aerosol detector (CAD).

Techniques:

Figure 15. Isothermal separations of five sulfonamides and uracil. Stationary phase: Waters XBridge C18 (75 4.6 mm, 2.5 mm); mobile phase: deionized water with 0.1% formic acid; flow rate: 1.0 mL/min; injection volume: 2 mL (60 and 808C) and 1 mL (from 100 to 1808C); detection: UV at 270 nm. Analytes: (1) uracil, (2) sulfadiazine, (3) sulfathiazole, (4) sulfamerazine, (5) sulfamethoxazole and (6) sulfamethazine. Figure reprinted with permission from reference (51).

Journal: Journal of chromatographic science

Article Title: Silica, Hybrid Silica, Hydride Silica and Non-Silica Stationary Phases for Liquid Chromatography. Part II: Chemical and Thermal Stability.

doi: 10.1093/chromsci/bmu173

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 15. Isothermal separations of five sulfonamides and uracil. Stationary phase: Waters XBridge C18 (75 4.6 mm, 2.5 mm); mobile phase: deionized water with 0.1% formic acid; flow rate: 1.0 mL/min; injection volume: 2 mL (60 and 808C) and 1 mL (from 100 to 1808C); detection: UV at 270 nm. Analytes: (1) uracil, (2) sulfadiazine, (3) sulfathiazole, (4) sulfamerazine, (5) sulfamethoxazole and (6) sulfamethazine. Figure reprinted with permission from reference (51).

Article Snippet: Teutenberg et al. (42) have shown that a polymeric stationary phase (PLRP-S from Polymer Laboratories) exhibited less bleeding than zirconium dioxide and graphitized carbon stationary phases, as shown in Figure 14, where detection was carried out using a charged aerosol detector (CAD).

Techniques: Injection

Figure 18. Halo Protein stationary phase stability under acidic and HT-LC conditions: (A) HALO Protein C4 column: 100 2.1 mm; mobile phase gradient, 25–40% acetonitrile/0.1% aqueous FA in 10 min; (B) HALO Protein ES-C18 column: 2.1 100 mm; mobile phase gradient: 25–45% acetonitrile/0.1% aqueous TFA in 5 min; temperature: 908C; flow rate: 1.0 mL/min; detector: 215 nm (Courtesy of Stephanie Schuster from Advanced Materials Technology).

Journal: Journal of chromatographic science

Article Title: Silica, Hybrid Silica, Hydride Silica and Non-Silica Stationary Phases for Liquid Chromatography. Part II: Chemical and Thermal Stability.

doi: 10.1093/chromsci/bmu173

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 18. Halo Protein stationary phase stability under acidic and HT-LC conditions: (A) HALO Protein C4 column: 100 2.1 mm; mobile phase gradient, 25–40% acetonitrile/0.1% aqueous FA in 10 min; (B) HALO Protein ES-C18 column: 2.1 100 mm; mobile phase gradient: 25–45% acetonitrile/0.1% aqueous TFA in 5 min; temperature: 908C; flow rate: 1.0 mL/min; detector: 215 nm (Courtesy of Stephanie Schuster from Advanced Materials Technology).

Article Snippet: Teutenberg et al. (42) have shown that a polymeric stationary phase (PLRP-S from Polymer Laboratories) exhibited less bleeding than zirconium dioxide and graphitized carbon stationary phases, as shown in Figure 14, where detection was carried out using a charged aerosol detector (CAD).

Techniques:

Figure 20. Stability of hybrid and a polymeric stationary phases: (A) column performance of XBridge C18: (a) test chromatogram obtained before column was heated to 1508C; (b) test chromatogram after 5th heating cycle, (c) after 10th heating cycle, (d) after 15th heating cycle. (B) Column performance of Gemini NX C18: (a) test chromatogram obtained before column was heated to 1508C; (b) test chromatogram obtained after 5th heating cycle, (c) after 10th heating cycle and (d) after 15th heating cycle. (C) Column performance of YMC Triart C18 column: (a) brand-new, (b) after neutral heating phase, (c) after acidic heating phase and (d) after first cycle of basic heating phase. (D) Column performance of Showa Denko Shodex ET-RP1 4D polymer-based column: (a) brand-new, (b) after neutral heating phase, (c) after acidic heating phase and (d) after basic heating phase. Analytes: uracil (1), methyl benzoate (2), n-butyl benzoate (3) and n-hexyl benzoate (4). Analytes for (A), (B) and (C) 1 ¼ dihydroxyacetone, 2 ¼ propyl paraben, 3 ¼ propranolol, 4 ¼ dipropyl phthalate, 5 ¼ naphthalene, 6 ¼ acenaphthene, 7 ¼ amitriptyline, for (D) uracil (1), methyl benzoate (2), n-butyl benzoate (3) and n-hexyl benzoate (4). For (A), (B) and (C) mobile phase: 65/35 (v/v) methanol–phosphate buffer (pH 7; 10 mM), flow rate: 1 mL min21, for (D) mobile phase: 65/35 (v/v) acetonitrile/water, flow rate: 0.6 mL min21. UV detection was carried out at 254 nm for all experiments. (A) and (B) were adapted from reference (21), (C) and (D) were adapted from reference (46) (reprinted with permission).

Journal: Journal of chromatographic science

Article Title: Silica, Hybrid Silica, Hydride Silica and Non-Silica Stationary Phases for Liquid Chromatography. Part II: Chemical and Thermal Stability.

doi: 10.1093/chromsci/bmu173

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 20. Stability of hybrid and a polymeric stationary phases: (A) column performance of XBridge C18: (a) test chromatogram obtained before column was heated to 1508C; (b) test chromatogram after 5th heating cycle, (c) after 10th heating cycle, (d) after 15th heating cycle. (B) Column performance of Gemini NX C18: (a) test chromatogram obtained before column was heated to 1508C; (b) test chromatogram obtained after 5th heating cycle, (c) after 10th heating cycle and (d) after 15th heating cycle. (C) Column performance of YMC Triart C18 column: (a) brand-new, (b) after neutral heating phase, (c) after acidic heating phase and (d) after first cycle of basic heating phase. (D) Column performance of Showa Denko Shodex ET-RP1 4D polymer-based column: (a) brand-new, (b) after neutral heating phase, (c) after acidic heating phase and (d) after basic heating phase. Analytes: uracil (1), methyl benzoate (2), n-butyl benzoate (3) and n-hexyl benzoate (4). Analytes for (A), (B) and (C) 1 ¼ dihydroxyacetone, 2 ¼ propyl paraben, 3 ¼ propranolol, 4 ¼ dipropyl phthalate, 5 ¼ naphthalene, 6 ¼ acenaphthene, 7 ¼ amitriptyline, for (D) uracil (1), methyl benzoate (2), n-butyl benzoate (3) and n-hexyl benzoate (4). For (A), (B) and (C) mobile phase: 65/35 (v/v) methanol–phosphate buffer (pH 7; 10 mM), flow rate: 1 mL min21, for (D) mobile phase: 65/35 (v/v) acetonitrile/water, flow rate: 0.6 mL min21. UV detection was carried out at 254 nm for all experiments. (A) and (B) were adapted from reference (21), (C) and (D) were adapted from reference (46) (reprinted with permission).

Article Snippet: Teutenberg et al. (42) have shown that a polymeric stationary phase (PLRP-S from Polymer Laboratories) exhibited less bleeding than zirconium dioxide and graphitized carbon stationary phases, as shown in Figure 14, where detection was carried out using a charged aerosol detector (CAD).

Techniques: Polymer