42
December 2010
Netherlands was just coincidence and that UK pharmaceutical companies are also working on this topic. (Editor’s Note: it IS a coincidence! For example, Andrew Teasdale (AstraZeneca, Charnwood) is an authority on this topic and has edited a book on “Genotoxic Impurities: strategies for isolation and control”)
The second day of the meeting continued with the theme of column selection and optimisation of conditions with the first paper presented by Dr Roman Szucs of Pfizer UK, this year’s winner of the Chromatographic Society’s Jubilee Medal. He started his talk by pointing out the vast effort required in the search for new drugs. In any given year a company may examine up to 10,000 candidate compounds but after three or four years of preclinical and animal testing this will be reduced to perhaps 250 compounds. Phase II trials on volunteers takes another five or six years and reduces the number of candidate compounds to five for Phase III clinical testing so that after final regulatory approval fifteen years of effort and a billion dollars have been expended. Even after this it is not unknown for a drug to be withdrawn. Dr Szucs pointed out that resolution depended on both plate numbers and on separation factors and for optimum efficiency retention factors should lie in the range of about 2-5. Applying cluster analysis showed that examination of many commercial phases showed many phase giving similar separation with perhaps a dozen outliers giving quite different behaviour. Mathematical modelling required input for physico-chemical properties, solvation parameters (Abraham coefficients) and molecular descriptors. Combination of all of these can produce good correlation between experimental and predicted results. Another of the talks in this “industrial perspectives” session was from Adrian Clarke (AstraZeneca, Charnwood). This talk developed the theme introduced by Patrick Petersson in the previous Society meeting at Alderley Edge in March, further showcasing the almost seamless manner in which AstraZeneca have been able to introduce and adopt uHPLC.
As on the previous day there was a session with presentations by vendors on specific aspects of their products relevant to the overall
topic of the meeting. These presentations made general contributions to the theme of the meeting. For example, a paper from Dionex specifically on the development of a method for the determination of diuretics was a good illustration of the use of ion- exchange, an obvious orthogonal, but perhaps under-utilised, mode of LC to RPLC. The morning session ended with a two hour break for lunch, exhibition and the Society’s AGM. At the AGM, the President Mr Alan Handley pointed out that the Society was always willing to consider ideas for future meetings.
The two afternoon closing sessions consisted of another four papers again on the overall theme of the meeting, with talks by de Beer and Lesellier dealing with stationary phase selectivity, the latter in the context of supercritical fluid chromatography. De Beer dealt with several aspects of stationary-phase optimised LC including gradient elution on multiple stationary phase systems, the use of small particles and the use of high temperature to minimise bacl pressure problems. Lesellier noted that in SFC as in LC, porous graphitic carbon and fluorophenyl stationary phases are amongst the phases that show a significant difference from C18 phases. Perhaps the most intriguing talks of the day were left for last. GSK speakers Nigel Howes and Steve Mount dealt with Quality by Design for analytical methods. It was notable how for this approach to work it was necessary for close liaison between R&D and Production throughout the development of the methodology. Howes and Mount worked together closely as a team in dealing with questions which was good evidence for those that doubted that this coordinated approach was feasible in practice. It was also evident that, counter to the sentiment of the rest of the meeting, that effective method development in this way could often result in older, simpler technology being used.
A final thank you must go to MSD for hosting the meeting, to all the exhibitors who generously supported the meeting, to the Vice- President of the Society, Dr Paul Ferguson and the Treasurer Dr Greg Jonas, who organised this successful event in collaboration with the host MSD scientists.
HPLC 2010 - June 19-24, 2010 Boston, MA, USA Hynes Convention Center and Sheraton Boston Hotel
AFTER the social event - macro-array LC?
Pete Carr, 2010 Martin Medal award winner, was keen that his research group shared the limelight with him
HPLC is clearly not a Chromatographic Society meeting but it would be remiss of us to allow the ‘main event’ of the year to go without comment or mention of the Society’s involvement. Importantly, Pete Carr, our 2010 Martin Medal awardee was presented with his medal at the opening ceremony on the Sunday evening (to tumultuous
claps of thunder from outside the building!). Following the award ceremony Professor Carr gave a virtuoso plenary lecture covering his contributions to the field of two- dimensional chromatography. This proved to be highly appropriate given that, while in
Baltimore in 2008 all the talk was of U-HPLC and fused-core particles, in Boston the ‘buzz’ had moved on to 2D-LC and the analysis of biopharmaceuticals. During the week, Dwight Stoll, a Pete Carr collaborator gave a highly informative tutorial session on 2D-LC. Such sessions are clearly popular and useful and now seem
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
