ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical analysis2019
Performance comparison of chlorinated chiral stationary phases in supercritical fluid chromatography for separation of selected pyrrolidone derivatives.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Molecular Docking Observations on Enantiomeric Retention Trends and Selection of Chiral Stationary Phase.Chirality · 2025Article
- Subcritical Fluid Chromatography at Sub-Ambient Temperatures for the Chiral Resolution of Ketamine Metabolites with Rapid-Onset Antidepressant Effects.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of two chlorinated chiral stationary phases, namely, Lux Cellulose-2 and Lux i-Cellulose-5, flow-rate, percentage of co-solvent and chemical structures of the compounds on retention and resolution were studied within this article. In this work a backpressure of 150 bar, a temperature of 40 °C and 10% of methanol as co-solvent were chosen as operating conditions. The optimum flow-rate was 2 mL/min. The percentage of co-solvent was studied between 7.5% and 15%. We have observed that 15% of methanol gave the best results for most of the compounds. For all the derivatives, the Lux Cellulose-2 provided better resolutions going from 1.50 to 3.59 compared with Lux i-Cellulose-5.
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.