4.4 Article

Mark-Houwink Parameters for the Universal Calibration of Acrylate, Methacrylate and Vinyl Acetate Polymers Determined by Online Size-Exclusion Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry

期刊

MACROMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 211, 期 5, 页码 520-528

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/macp.200900323

关键词

chromatography; electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS); intrinsic viscosity molecular weight relation-ship; Mark-Houwink-Kuhn-Sakurada (MHKS) coefficients; size exclusion chromatography (SEC); triple detection; universal calibration; viscosity

资金

  1. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
  2. German Research Council (DEG)
  3. Ministry of Science and Arts of the state of Baden-Wurttemberg
  4. University of New South Wales
  5. University International Postgraduate Award (UIPA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Size exclusion chromatography coupled online to electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (SEC/ESI-MS) is employed to establish universal calibration (UC) relationships for a number of linear poly(alkyl acrylates) and poly(alkyl methacrylates) (pmmAs) as well as poly(vinyl acetate) synthesized via radical chain transfer polymerization. It is demonstrated that in the analyzed molecular weight range, Mark-Houwink-Kuhn-Sakurada (MHKS) coefficients can be successfully determined in relation to values of pMMA. The agreement between the UC model using mass spectrometry-derived MHKS coefficients and the measured data was generally better than 10%. The MHKS values reported herein are expected to remain valid up to 20 kDa. A comparison with the outcome of UC using literature reported MHKS coefficients determined by intrinsic viscosity - molecular weight (IV-MW) measurements is provided. Errors of more than 30% can result when these literature values are employed in the low molecular weight range ((M) over bar (n) < 20 kDa). Use of MHKS coefficients derived from IV-MW measurements in UC is, therefore, strongly discouraged at molecular weights below 20 kDa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据