4.6 Article

Chitosan chiral ligand exchange membranes for sorption resolution of amino acids

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 1462-1473

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2008.12.007

关键词

Membranes; Separations; Adsorption; Chiral resolution; Chiral ligand exchange

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20674054]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [106131]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB623407]
  4. Sichuan Youth Science and Technology Foundation [08ZQ026-042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept of chiral ligand exchange is employed in the present study to achieve the chiral resolution of tryptophan (Trp) enantiomers by using chitosan (CS) membrane in a sorption resolution mode and copper(II) ion as the complexing ion. CS porous membranes are prepared by freeze-drying method (CS-LT) and sol-gel process at high temperature (CS-HT), respectively, to investigate their sorption resolution characteristics. The proposed CS chiral ligand exchange membranes exhibit good chiral resolution capability. Meanwhile the sorption selectivity of the CS membranes is found to be reversed from L-selectivity at low copper(II) ion concentration to D-selectivity at high copper(II) ion concentration, which is attributable to the stability difference between the copper(II)-L-Trp and copper(II)-D-Trp complexes. Moreover, the CS-HT membrane shows better performance with respect to both sorption selectivity and sorption capability than the CS-LT membrane, which mainly results from its more amorphous structures compared with the more crystalline structures of the CS-LT membrane. The superiority of sorption capability of the CS-HT membrane is also attributable to its larger specific surface area than that of the CS-LT membrane. The results obtained in this study are conducive to the design and fabrication of chiral ligand exchange membranes for enantiomer separation in sorption mode. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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