31
prevents the use of these solvents as diluent and as such; a more practical approach is required.
If we ignore the difference in N between the two columns (the difference in retention factor makes this direct comparison unfair) we can compare the similarities by analysing the results in Figure 5:
• Deterioration in theoretical plate count is observed as the injection volume increases, this is true for all three diluents analysed on both columns.
Figure 2a
• On both columns, the effect is most pronounced when injecting in methanol and least in heptane/IPA.
• The effect of using IPA as a diluent is only marginally worse at larger injection volumes than using a mixture of heptane/IPA.
Figure 2b
Figure 2: Comparison of increasing injection volume (0.2 (Black), 0.4 (Blue), 0.8 (Green), 1.6 (Aqua), and 3.2µL (Pink)) on a 50mm (2a) and 100mm (2b) x 2.1 mm, 1.7µm column, using methanol as the diluent.
In conclusion, injection diluent does play a major role in peak deformation when using sub 2 µm ultra-performance SFC columns. This effect can be minimised by using a solvent of similar polarity to the gradient starting conditions, although this is not always possible or practical due to poor solubility.
Compromises must be made regarding:
• Column length versus run time, ultra- performance SFC is usually chosen due to the possibility of using very short gradient methods for screening and scouting, so a 50 mm column may be essential.
• The concentration of the sample versus the volume to be injected. Often dependant on the solubility in the diluent.
One solution we have found to enable a ‘one size fits most’ approach is dissolve the sample at ~1 mg/mL in IPA and inject 0.5 -1.0 µL on a 100 mm column, running a 2.5 minute gradient. Although not the scientifically best approach it is the most practical for our laboratory.
Figure 3: A series of 0.2 (Aqua), 0.4 (Pink), 0.8 (Green), 1.6 (Blue) and 3.2µL (Black) injections of Diethylamino-4-methyl-coumarin (1 mg/mL in heptane/IPA) on 2.1 mm x 50 mm, 1.7 µm.
For information: Reach Separations is an outsource chromatographic purification laboratory specialising in both achiral and chiral separations of small molecules. From their well-equipped labs in Nottingham (UK) they are keen advocates of the benefits of SFC particularly with its growing reputation for achiral separations.
References:
[1]
J.Ruta,
S.Rudaz J. Chromatogr. A, 1217 (2010) 8230-8240
[2] C.White, J. Chromatogr. A, 1074 (2005) 163-173
[3] J.N.Fairchild et al, LCGC North America, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, 326-333
Figure 5: Number of theoretical plates (N) plotted against injection volume for the three diluents trialled.
[4] Agilent Technologies
https://www.agilent.com/ cs/library/Support/Documents/f39250232446.pdf
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
