Skip to main content
Log in

Chemometric Comparison of Thin-Layer Chromatography, Gradient High-Performance Liquid Chromatography, and Computational Methods for Lipophilicity Assessment of Model Compounds

  • Original Research Papers
  • Published:
JPC – Journal of Planar Chromatography – Modern TLC Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) on two adsorbents (RP18 and CN) and with six modifiers (acetonitrile, acetone, dioxane, propan 2-ol, methanol, and tetrahydrofurane), followed by classical RM value extrapolation (previous results), was chemometrically compared with new one-run gradient high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (C18, C18e, CN, and DIOL columns, acetonitrile, and methanol as modifiers) and, additionally, with seven computational algorithms (ALOGPs, AClogP, ALOGP, MLOGP, KOWWIN, XLOGP2, and XLOGP3) as a lipophilicity assessment tool on 35 model compounds with known lipophilicity. The statistical significance of intercepts and slopes of Collander equation (log P — retention dependence) and their values were compared. Whole results data set was subjected to scaled principal component analysis, which allowed exploring two main trends in these data. It can be concluded that one-run gradient HPLC does not outperform TLC in lipophilicity determination. Very good correlations were obtained between real log P and computational approaches; however, this is not a surprise for such simple molecules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Nasal, R. Kaliszan, Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 2 (2006) 327–340.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ł. Komsta, R. Skibiński, A. Berecka, A. Gumieniczek, B. Radkiewicz, M. Radoń, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 53 (2010) 911– 918.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. E. Gowin, Ł. Komsta, J. Planar Chromatogr. 25 (2012) 5–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. E. Gowin, Ł. Komsta, J. Planar Chromatogr. 25 (2012) 471–474.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ł. Komsta, E. Gowin, Acta Chromatogr. 26 (2014) 1–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. C.M. Du, K. Valko, C. Bevan, D. Reynolds, M.H. Abraham, Anal. Chem. 70 (2012) 4228–4234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Kaune, M. Knorrenschild, A. Kettrup, Fresenius’ J. Anal. Chem. 352 (1995) 303–312.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. V. Makovskaya, J.R. Dean, W.R. Tomlinson, S.M. Hitchen, M. Comber, Anal. Chim. Acta 315 (1995) 183–192.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. K. Valkó, Anal. Chem. 69 (1997) 2022–2029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Łukasz Komsta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Komsta, Ł., Pietraś, R., Bartuzi, E. et al. Chemometric Comparison of Thin-Layer Chromatography, Gradient High-Performance Liquid Chromatography, and Computational Methods for Lipophilicity Assessment of Model Compounds. JPC-J Planar Chromat 28, 115–118 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1556/JPC.28.2015.2.5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/JPC.28.2015.2.5

Key Words

Navigation