, Volume 51, Issue 9–10, pp 536–544 | Cite as

Use of optimization software for comparing stationary phases in order to find HPLC conditions suitable for separating 16 PAHs

  • S. Goga-Rémont
  • S. Heinisch
  • E. Lesellier
  • J. L. Rocca
  • A. Tchapla


The 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) listed as water priority pollutants are generally analyzed under gradient elution mode on a silica-based stationary phase with polymeric octadecyl grafts. Separation is not possible, in isocratic mode, on such phases due to the wide retention range of these PAHs.

Isocratic elution, however when possible, is much more attractive for various reasons such as: less complex apparatus, better inter-laboratory reproducibility and increased column life.

To set good analysis conditions in isocratic mode, six different stationary phases were studied, using “Osiris” optimization software. For each, temperature and mobile phase composition were simultaneously optimized using a response function that takes into account three important criteria: separation quality, analysis time and robustness of analytical conditions.

The various stationary phases have been compared from the results obtained and optimum conditions for elution in isocratic mode have been established for a silica-based stationary phase grafted to a pyrene group. The resulting separation was shown to be totally comparable, for its quality and analysis time, with the separation obtained by the classical method using gradient elution, furthermore, these conditions proved advantageous in terms of robustness.

Key Words

Column liquid chromatography Stationary phases Temperature optimization Mobile phase optimization Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Grazfeld-Hüsgen, R. Schuster, H. Schulenberger-Schell, Int. Lab.6, 15 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P. Garrigues, M. Lamotte, in Polyciclic aromatic compounds, synthesis, properties, analytical measurements, occurrence and biological effects, PAHS XIII Gordon and breach science publishers (1991)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    K.G. Furton, E. Jolly, G. Pentzke, J. Chromatogr.,642, 33 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. Lesellier, Analusis, accepted (1999)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S.A. Wise, L.C. Sander, W.E. May, J. Chromatogr.,642, 329 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    EPA test method, PAH method 610. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and support Laboratory, Cincinati, OH, July 1982.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Heron, A. Tchapla, Chromatographia,36, 11(1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Olsson, L.C. Sander, S.A. Wise, J. Chromatogr.,537, 73 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    W. Hesselink, R.H.M.A. Schiffer, P.R. Kootstra, J. Chromatogr. A,697, 165 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    L.C. Sander, R.M. Parris, S.W. Wise, P. Garrigues, Anal. Chem.63, 2589 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Goga Rémont, PhD thesis, (1998) Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    P.L. Zhu, L.R. Snyder, J.W. Dolan, N.M. Djordjevic, D.W. Hill, L.C. Sander, T.J. Waeghe, J. Chromatogr. A,756, 21 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. Ooms, LC-GC,9, 574 (1996).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    H. Colin, J.C. Carlos Diez-Masa, G. Guiochon, T. Czajkowska, I. Miedzak, J. Chromatogr.167, 41 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    F.V. Warren, B.A. Bidlingmeyer, Anal. Chem.,60, 2821 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    P.J. Schoenmakers, H.A.H. Billiet, L. de Galan. J. Chromatogr.,185, 179 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    L.R. Snyder, J.W. Dolan, J.R. Gant, J. Chromatogr.,165, 3 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Heinisch, J.L. Rocca, M. Feinberg, J. Chemom.,3, 127 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    M.A. Quarry, R.L. Grob, L.R. Snyder, Anal. Chem.,58, 907 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    P. Jandera, J. Churacek, in Gradient elution in column liquid chromatography, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1985)Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    L.R. Snyder, J. Glajach, J. J. Kirkland, in Practical HPLC Method Development, John Wiley & Sons, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    S. Heinisch, P. Riviere, J.J. Rocca, Chromatographia,36, 157 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    B. Ooms, LC-GC,9, 574 (1996).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    W.R. Melander, B.K. Chen, C. Horváth, J. Chromatogr. A,185, 99 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    J.R. Gant, J.W. Dolan, L.R. Snyder, J. Chromatogr. A,185, 153 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    E.C. Harrington, Ind. Quality Control,21, 494 (1965).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    S. Goga, S. Heinisch, J.L. Rocca, in Use of an optimization software for the good predictions of rugged analysis conditions in RP-HPLC, HPLC'98, Saint-Louis-USA, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    S. Goga-Remont, S. Heinisch, J.L. Rocca, submitted to J. Chromatogr.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    P.J. Schoenmakers, J.K. Straters, A. Bartha, J. Chromatogr.,458, 355 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    S. Heinsch, J.L. Rocca, Chromatographia,41, 544 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    S.A. Wise, W.J. Bonnett, F.R. Guenther, W.E. May, J. Chromatogr. Sc.,19, 457 (1981).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    S.A. Wise, L.C. Sander, J. HRC & CC,8, 248 (1985).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    E. Katz, K. Ogan, Chromatogr. Newslett.,8, 20 (1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Goga-Rémont
    • 1
  • S. Heinisch
    • 1
  • E. Lesellier
    • 2
  • J. L. Rocca
    • 1
  • A. Tchapla
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire des Sciences Analytiques, UMR 5619 CNRSUniversité Claude BernardVilleurbanne CedexFrance
  2. 2.LETIAM, IUT d'OrsayOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations