Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Sep 19.
Published in final edited form as: J Chromatogr A. 2014 Jul 24;1360:296–304. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.07.047

Figure 2.

Figure 2

CE-MS extracted ion electropherograms (EIC) of IL surfactants (panel A), and ILs-CD complex (panel B) obtained in the absence and presence of TM-β-CD, respectively in 25 mM ammonium formate buffer (pH 2.5). A plot of effective mobility versus. ILs surfactant type is shown in Panel C. The left electropherograms represents the protonated [M+H]+ ion profile of the five injected ILs, monitored at m/z 343 for L-UCAB, m/z 371 for L-UCVB, m/z 385 for L-UCLB and L-UCILB and m/z 419 for L-UCEB. The positive [M+H]+ ion profile of ILs-CD complex is shown in the right electropherograms, which were monitored at m/z 1772 for L-UCAB+CD, m/z 1800 for L-UCVB+CD, m/z 1814 for L-UCLB/L-UCILB+CD and m/z 1848 for L-UCEB+CD. The inset bar plot in panel C compares the EOF mobility with and without TM-β-CD in 25 mM ammonium formate buffer (pH 2.5). Thiourea was used as an EOF mobility marker, which was monitored as protonated compound in ESI-MS at m/z 77.