Chromatographia

, Volume 56, Issue 11–12, pp 665–671 | Cite as

Simplification of a chromatographic test methodology for evaluation of base deactivated supports

  • C. Stella
  • P. Seuret
  • S. Rudaz
  • A. Tchapla
  • J. -Y. Gauvrit
  • P. Lanteri
  • J. -L. Veuthey
Originals Column Liquid Chromatography

Summary

Today reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RP-LC) is the most employed chromatographic technique for analysis of basic compounds. Unfortunately, the strong ionic interactions of basic compounds with residual silanols result in asymmetric peaks and non-reproducible retention. This problem and the continous increase in the use of RP-LC techniques have furthered the need for a new generation of “base deactivated” stationary phases.

Selecting the appropriate stationary phase for a specific separation is an important parameter in the development of LC methods. To characterize and evaluate the relative chromatographic performance of stationary phases, a series of tests are proposed in the literature.

In this work, a chromatographic test previously developed is discussed with the aim of simplifying its methodology. The number of test compounds was reduced (seven instead of fourteen), as well as that of the mobile phases (one or two instead of three) and columns per support (three instead of five).

This simplification allows a faster and easier method to evaluate new chromatographic supports.

Key Words

Column liquid chromatography Principal component analysis Chromatographic test method Basic compounds 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Stella, C.; Rudaz, S.; Veuthey, J.-L.; Tchapla, A.Chromatographia 2001,53, S-133–S-119.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Euerby, M.R.; Petersson, P.LC-GC Europe 2000 13 665.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Vervoort, R.J.M.; Debets, A.J.J.; Claessens, H.A.; Cramers, C.A.; de Jong, G.J.;J Chromatogr A 2000, 897, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Ivány, T.; Vander Heyden, Y.; Visky, D.; Baten, P.; De Beer, J.; Lázár, I.; Massart, D.L.; Roets, E.; Hoogmartens, J.J Chromatogr A 2002,954, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Rogers, S.D.; Dorsey, J.G.J Chromatogr A 2000,892, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Kimata, K.; Iwaguchi, K.; Onishi, S.; Jinno, K.; Eksteen, R.; Hosoya, K.; Araki, M.; Tanaka, N.J Chromatogr Sci 1989,27, 721–728.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Stella, C.; Rudaz, S.; Veuthey, J.-L.; Tchapla, A.Chromatographia 2001 53, S-132–S-140.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    McCalley, D.V.J Chromatogr A 1994,664, 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Stella, C.; Seuret, P.; Rudaz, S.; Carrupt, P.-A.; Gauvrit, J.-Y.; Lantéri, P.; Veuthey, J.-L.J Sep Sc 2002 (in press).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Vervoort, R.J.M.; Maris, F.A.; Hindriks, H.J. Chromatogr 2002 623, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    McCalley, D.V.; Brereton, R.G.J Chromatogr A 1998,828, 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Nawrocki, J.J Chromatogr A 1997,779, 29–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    McCalley, D.V.J Chromatogr A 1997,769, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Héron, S.; Tchapla, A.Analusis 1997, 257–262.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Stella
    • 1
  • P. Seuret
    • 1
  • S. Rudaz
    • 1
  • A. Tchapla
    • 2
  • J. -Y. Gauvrit
    • 3
  • P. Lanteri
    • 3
  • J. -L. Veuthey
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Analytical Chemistry, School of PharmacyUniversity of GenevaGeneva 4
  2. 2.Groupe of Analytical ChemistryLETIAM-IUT d'OrsayOrsayFrance
  3. 3.Laboratory of Chemometrics, University of LyonESPCEVilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations