50 CHROMATOGRAPHY
Merits of dual-flow refractive index detection in GPC
Determining molar mass averages in GPC. By Amandaa K. Brewer & Regina Roemling.
G
el permeation chromatography (GPC) coupled to a differential
refractive index (RI) detector is widely used for obtaining molar mass averages and distributions of polymers. Here, we have studied the repeatability, reproducibility and baseline stability of dual-flow RI detectors for the determination of molar mass averages.
Fig. 1. The EcoSEC GPC system.
GPC is currently the most widely accepted and used analytical method for obtaining molar mass averages and distributions of both synthetic and biopolymers. Traditionally, molar mass averages and distributions are obtained via a peak position calibration involving a series of standards of known molar mass and chemistry analysed by GPC coupled to a differential refractive index (RI) detector. In the context of GPC, GPC/RI continues to be heavily employed as it provides excellent day-to-day reproducibility and is ideal for quality control procedures.
One caveat to single detector GPC is the baseline stability of the RI detector. A conventional RI detector is constructed in such a way that there are two sides: the reference side consisting of stagnant pure solvent; and the sample side, containing a flowing stream of analyte in the same solvent as in the reference side. Over time, the reference side slowly changes, resulting in baseline drift. For peak position calibration a drift in the RI baseline has been shown to drastically affect the accuracy and precision of molar mass averages and distributions with errors up 25%.
Here, we have studied the repeatability, reproducibility and baseline stability of a dual-flow RI detector in the EcoSEC GPC system for the determination of molar mass averages via peak position calibration. Te dual- flow design of the RI detector is constructed in such a way that the reference side of the RI flow cell contains a flowing stream of pure solvent. Te dual-flow design is shown to compensate for the changes in the refractive index of the solvent over time by continuously flowing pure solvent through the reference side of the flow cell.
Experimental GPC analysis was performed on a system consisting of either an all-in-one EcoSEC GPC system equipped with a dual-flow refractive index detector or a modular HPLC system with an external conventional refractive index detector. Separation of polystyrene standards (PS) occurred over a column bank consisting of TSKgel SuperMultiporeHZ-M columns, with THF as the mobile phase.
www.scientistlive.com
To demonstrate the repeatability, reproducibility and baseline stability of a dual-flow RI detector compared to a conventional RI detector a series of identical experiments was performed on the EcoSEC GPC system (Fig. 1) and two conventional HPLC systems. As shown in Fig. 2, five consecutive injections of polystyrene standards with run times of one hour without auto zeroing the detector between injections for a total of five hours, resulted in an extremely stable baseline with low baseline drift for the dual-flow RI detector and a significantly drifting baseline on the two conventional RI detectors.
Technical comparison Te repeatability and reproducibility of the molar mass averages as obtained via the dual-flow and conventional RI detectors were also compared. Te reproducibility of the weight-average molar mass, Mw, of the dual-flow RI detector was determined to be superior by a factor of 3 to that of a conventional RI detector. Additionally, the day-to-day reproducibility and repeatability for the determination of molar mass averages was shown to vary less than 0.5% for the dual- flow RI detector, while the conventional RI detector produced day-to-day variations in molar mass averages between 1% and 3%.
A stable RI detector baseline is required for successful experiments, and repeatable and reproducible molar mass averages. Extreme care must be taken when molar mass averages and distributions
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92