https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index en-au 5 https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:35479 Wed 14 Aug 2019 14:41:23 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:31445 Wed 11 Apr 2018 14:55:03 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:35485 Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:06:06 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:31522 K_d ∼ 0.4 mM). FACE was easily carried out at shorter binding equilibration time (i.e. 30 min) and without the need to separate the microspheres, circumventing laborious and, in the case of the system under study, inefficient sample filtration. It also allowed for competitive binding studies by virtue of its ability to distinctly separate intact microspheres and all tested amines which could not be resolved in HPLC. K_d’s for nonimprinted (control) microspheres (NIM) from FACE and HPLC were also comparable (∼ 0.6 mM) but at higher histamine concentrations, HPLC gave lower histamine binding. This discrepancy was attributed to inefficient filtration of the batch binding samples prior to HPLC analysis resulting in an over-estimation of the concentration of free histamine brought about by the presence of unfiltered histamine-bound microspheres.]]> Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:43:51 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:2355 Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:27:55 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:21239 4], [BMIM][PF₆], [HMIM][PF₆] and [OMIM][PF₆] and CHCl₃ were examined. The observed IF (imprinting factor) values for MIP_BF4, MIP_PF6 and MIP_CHCl3 were 1.0, 1.98 and 4.64, respectively. The longer chain HMIM and OMIM systems returned lower IF values of 1.1 and 2.3, respectively. MIP_PF6 also showed a ~25% binding capacity reduction vs. MIP_CHCl3 (5 μmol g^-1 vs. 7 μmol g^-1 respectively). MIP_CHCl3 and MIP_PF6 differed in terms of BET surface area (306 m² g^-1vs. 185 m² g^-1), pore size (1.10 and 2.19 nm vs. 0.97 and 7.06 nm), the relative number of pores (Type A: 10.4 vs. 7.5%; Type B: 8.5 vs. 3.0%), and surface zeta potential (-37.9 mV vs. -20.3 mV). The MIP specificity for 1 was examined by selective rebinding studies with caffeine (2) and ephedrine (3). MIP_PF6 rebound higher quantities of 2 than MIP_CHCl3 , but this was largely due to non-specific binding. Both MIP_CHCl3 and MIP_PF6 showed a higher affinity for 3 than for 2. Reduction in the Room Temperature Ionic Liquid (RTIL) porogen volume had little impact on the polymer morphology, but did result in a modest decrease in IF from 2.6 to 2.3 and in the binding capacity (30% to 19%). MIP_CHCl3 retained the highest template specificity on rebinding from CHCl₃ (IF = 4.6) dropping to IF = 0.6 in MeOH/[BMIM][PF₆]. The MIP_CHCl3 binding capacity remained constant using CHCl₃, CH₂Cl₂ and MeOH (46-52%), dropped to 6% on addition of [BMIM][PF₆] and increased to 83% in H₂O (but at the expense of specificity with IF_H2O = 1.4). MIP_PF6 rebinding from MeOH saw an increase in specific rebinding to IF = 4.9 and also an increase in binding capacity to 48% when rebinding 1 from MeOH and to 42% and 45% with H₂O and CH₂Cl₂, respectively, although in the latter case the increased capacity was at the cost of specificity with IF_CH2Cl2 = 1.2. Overall the MIP_PF6 capacity and specificity were enhanced on addition of MeOH.]]> Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:53:03 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:3328 Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:23:20 AEDT ]]>