
pmid: 21397905
The aim of this research is to compare two continuous extraction technologies, intermittent counter-current extraction (ICcE) and dual flow counter-current chromatography (DFCCC), in terms of loading and throughput using the GUESSmix, and show the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods. A model sample containing caffeine, vanillin, naringenin and carvone, with a total load of 11.2 g, was employed with a hexane-ethyl acetate-methanol-water (2:3:2:3) phase system to evaluate an ICcE method on a preparative (912 ml coil volume) DE-Midi instrument. While DFCCC was carried out on a specially designed preparative (561 ml coil volume) bobbin installed in a similar Midi instrument case. While similar throughputs of 7.8 g/h and 6.9 g/h were achieved for the ICcE and DFCCC methods respectively, ICcE was demonstrated to have a number of advantages over DFCCC.
Benzaldehydes, Caffeine, Flavanones, Monoterpenes, Cyclohexane Monoterpenes, Countercurrent Distribution
Benzaldehydes, Caffeine, Flavanones, Monoterpenes, Cyclohexane Monoterpenes, Countercurrent Distribution
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 44 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
