Synthesis and Evaluation of a Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Selective to 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Lachlan Schwarz A , Clovia I. Holdsworth A , Adam McCluskey A C and Michael C. Bowyer B CA Discipline of Chemistry, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia.
B School of Applied Sciences, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah NSW 2258, Australia.
C Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed (e-mail: Adam.McCluskey@newcastle.edu.au; chmcb@cc.newcastle.edu.au).
Australian Journal of Chemistry 57(8) 759-764 https://doi.org/10.1071/CH04004
Submitted: 22 January 2004 Accepted: 29 April 2004 Published: 10 August 2004
Abstract
Molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) selective for the phenolic contaminant 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (2,4,6-TCP) were prepared and evaluated in three porogens of differing character (hexane, acetonitrile, dichloromethane). Rebinding of 2,4,6-TCP was found to be most effective in dichloromethane (imprinting factor: 13.2). Competitive binding studies performed against a range of close structural analogues showed a high preference for the target molecule, although partial recognition towards 2,4-dichlorophenol was also observed. Specificity was found to be dependent upon the presence of ring chlorine on the target, which suggested that these atoms participate in secondary binding interactions that are essential for successful recognition in the polymer cavity.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Australian Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation (GWRDC) for their generous financial support in funding this research (Grant Number UN98/1). L.S. thanks the GWRDC for scholarship support.
[1]
[2]
[3]
S. Kumagai,
I. Matsunaga,
Occup. Environ. Med. 1994, 51, 120.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[43]
[44]