ArticleJournal of chromatography. A2017
Size exclusion chromatography with superficially porous particles.
Article in Journal of chromatography. A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endophytic bacteria and fungi as a source of polysaccharides: production and characterization techniques.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Emerging Advances of Detection Strategies for Tumor-Derived Exosomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Technological interventions in improving the functionality of proteins during processing of meat analogs.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Review
- Recent Developments in Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: Fundamental Improvements for Practical Applications.Analytical chemistry · 2019Article
- Transport properties and size exclusion effects in wide-pore superficially porous particles.Chemical engineering science · 2018Article
- Optimizing separations in online comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography.Journal of separation science · 2018Review
- Superficially porous particles with 1000Å pores for large biomolecule high performance liquid chromatography and polymer size exclusion chromatography.Journal of chromatography. A · 2017Article
- Size exclusion chromatography with superficially porous particles.Journal of chromatography. A · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A comparison is made using size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) of synthetic polymers between fully porous particles (FPPs) and superficially porous particles (SPPs) with similar particle diameters, pore sizes and equal flow rates. Polystyrene molecular weight standards with a mobile phase of tetrahydrofuran are utilized for all measurements conducted with standard HPLC equipment. Although it is traditionally thought that larger pore volume is thermodynamically advantageous in SEC for better separations, SPPs have kinetic advantages and these will be shown to compensate for the loss in pore volume compared to FPPs. The comparison metrics include the elution range (smaller with SPPs), the plate count (larger for SPPs), the rate production of theoretical plates (larger for SPPs) and the specific resolution (larger with FPPs). Advantages to using SPPs for SEC are discussed such that similar separations can be conducted faster using SPPs. SEC using SPPs offers similar peak capacities to that using FPPs but with faster operation. This also suggests that SEC conducted in the second dimension of a two-dimensional liquid chromatograph may benefit with reduced run time and with equivalently reduced peak width making SPPs advantageous for sampling the first dimension by the second dimension separator. Additional advantages are discussed for biomolecules along with a discussion of optimization criteria for size-based separations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.