{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.062137049941927994, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.691964285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Application of polymeric surfactants in micellar electrokinetic chromatography‐electrospray ionization mass spectrometry of benzodiazepines and benzoxazocine chiral drugs

Chiral micellar EKC (CMEKC) coupled to ESI‐MS using polymeric surfactants as pseudostationary phases is investigated for simultaneous enantioseparation of two benzodiazepines, (±)‐oxazepam ((±)‐OXA) and (±)‐lorazepam ((±)‐LOR), and one benzoxazocine, (±)‐nefopam ((±)‐NEF). First, enantioselectivity and electrospray sensitivity of six chiral polymeric surfactants for all three chiral compounds are compared. Second, using poly(sodium N‐undecenoyl‐L‐leucinate) as pseudostationary phase, the organic modifiers (methanol (MeOH), isopropanol, and ACN) are added into the running buffer to further improve chiral resolution (RS). Next, a CMEKC‐ESI‐MS method for the simultaneous enantioseparation of two benzodiazepines is further developed by using a dipeptide polymeric surfactant, poly(sodium N‐undecenoxy carbonyl‐L,L‐leucyl‐valinate) (poly‐L,L‐SUCLV). The CMEKC conditions including nebulizer pressure, capillary length, ammonium acetate concentration, pH, poly‐L,L‐SUCLV concentration, and capillary temperature were optimized to achieve maximum chiral RS and highest sensitivity of MS detection. The spray chamber parameters (drying gas temperature and drying gas flow rate) as well as sheath liquid conditions (MeOH content, pH, flow rate, and ionic strength) were found to significantly influence MS S/N of both (±)‐OXA and (±)‐LOR. Finally, a comparative study between simultaneous UV and MS detection showed high plate numbers, better chiral RS, and enhanced detectability with CMEKC‐MS. However, speed of analysis was faster using CMEKC‐UV.