The Effects of the Column Length on the Efficiency of Capillary Zwitterionic Organic Polymer Monolithic Columns in HILIC Chromatography
- 274 Downloads
- 5 Citations
Abstract
Organic polymer monolithic columns of different lengths have been prepared in 320 µm i.d. fused silica capillary by in situ radical polymerization of N,N-dimethyl-N-methacryloxyethyl-N-(3-sulfopropyl) ammonium betaine as a zwitterionic functional monomer and bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate as a crosslinking monomer in the presence of porogenic solvents. The zwitterionic monolithic columns are intended for separations of polar compounds in hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC). The effects of the capillary column length, from 115 to 175 mm, on separation efficiency, were investigated under HILIC conditions, using 95:5 acetonitrile in water as the mobile phase. The extra-column contributions to band broadening significantly decrease the efficiency (apparent height equivalent to a theoretical plate), especially for weakly retained samples, and increase with diminishing column length. The experimental height equivalents of theoretical plate, HETP, were corrected for the extra-column contributions, which were determined for a series of columns by extrapolation to zero column length. On a 175 mm long column, the column efficiency, HETP = 16.5 μm, measured at the optimum linear flow velocity of 0.5 mm s−1, improved to HETP = 5 µm, after correction for extra-column contributions. For more strongly retained small polar compounds, interactions with zwitterionic groups and (or) water adsorbed inside the pores decrease the column efficiency at higher flow rates.
Keywords
Monolithic capillary columns HILIC Separation efficiency Column length Zwitterionic stationary phases Extra-column band broadeningNotes
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Czech Science Foundation (the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic) under the project No. 206/12/0398.
References
- 1.Alpert AJ (1990) J Chromatogr 499:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Jandera P (2011) Anal Chim Acta 692:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Svec F (2012) J Chromatogr A 1228:250–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Jandera P, Urban J (2008) J Sep Sci 31:2521–2540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Svec F, Huber CG (2006) Anal Chem 78:2100–2107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Buchmeiser MR (2007) Polymer 48(8):2187–2198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Urban J, Jandera P (2013) Anal Bioanal Chem 405:2123–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Nischang I, Teasdale I, Brüggemann O (2011) Anal Bioanal Chem 400:2289–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Urban J, Svec F, Frechet JMJ (2010) Anal Chem 82:1621–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Urban J, Svec F, Frechet JMJ (2010) J Chromatogr A 1217:8212–8221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Staňková M, Jandera P, Škeříková V, Urban J (2013) J Chromatogr A 1289:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Jandera P, Staňková M, Hájek T (2013) J Sep Sci 36:2430–2440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Jandera P, Staňková M, Škeříková V, Urban J (2013) J Chromatogr A 1274:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Fountain K, Neue U, Grumbach ES, Diehl DM (2009) J Chromatogr A 1216:5979–5988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Gritti F, Guiochon G (2011) J Chromatogr A 1218:4632–4648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Gritti F, Guiochon G (2014) J Chromatogr A 1327:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Jandera P (1984) J Chromatogr 314:13–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Dinh NP, Jonsson T, Irgum K (2013) J Chromatogr A 1320:33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar