Reduced Plate Height of 1.65 on a 20 × 3 mm Column Packed with 1.8 µm Particles in Supercritical Fluid Chromatography (SFC)

  • Terry A. BergerEmail author
Short Communication


The plumbing of a commercial supercritical fluid chromatograph was modified by replacing all the connector tubing with the shortest possible lengths (65 cm) of 75 µm ID tubes. Heat exchangers controlling column temperatures and column outlet temperature were bypassed. The UV detector flow cell was replaced with an experimental cell with a 75 µm inlet tube, and a 2 µL internal volume. All these steps were taken to minimize extra-column dispersion. The extra-column dispersion was decreased from ≈ 80 µL2 in the commercial instrument to roughly 2 µL2 with the modifications. Reduced plate heights as low as 1.65 were obtained using a 20 × 3 mm column packed with 1.8 µm particles. This is a remarkably low value for such a short column. The optimum flow was ≈ 2.5 mL min−1. The system pressure drop at optimum was 220 bar (320 bar pump pressure), but increased rapidly with flow rate, to 450 bar (550 at pump) at 3.5 mL min−1.


Supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) 3 × 20 mm 1.8 µm column Reduced plate height of 1.65 75 µm tubing Very high pressure 



The author wishes to acknowledge the gift of the experimental 20 × 3 mm, 1.8 µm RX-Sil column by Agilent Technologies in Wilmington, Delaware, and for the custom detector flow cell specially fabricated by Agilent in Waldbronn, Germany.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest. This article does not contain any studies with animals by the author.


  1. 1.
    Wahab MF, Wimalasinghe RM, Wang Y, Barhate CL, Patel DC, Armstrong DW (2016) Salient sub-second separations. Anal Chem 88:8821–8826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ismail OH, Pasti L, Ciogli A, Villani C, Kocergin J, Anderson S, Gasparrini F, Cavazzini A, Catani M (2016) Pirkle-type chiral stationary phase on core-shell and fully porous particles: are superficially porous particles always the better choice toward ultrafast high-performance enantioseparations? J Chromatogr A 1466:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khundadze N, Pantsulaia S, Fanali C, Farkas T, Chankvetadze B (2018) On our way to sub-second separations of enantiomers in high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 2018(1572):37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciogli A, Ismail OH, Mazzoccanti G, Villani C, Gasparrini F (2018) Enantioselective ultra high performance liquid and supercritical fluid chromatography: the race to the shortest chromatogram. J Sep Sci 41:1307–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perrenoud AG-G, Veuthey J-L, Guillarme D (2012) Comparison of ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography and ultra-high performance liquid chromatography for the analysis of pharmaceutical compounds. J Chromatogr A 1266:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berger TA (2016) Instrument modifications that produced reduced plate heights < 2 with sub-2 μm particles and 95% of theoretical efficiency at k = 2 in supercritical fluid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 1444:129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berger TA (2019) High-speed, high-efficiency achiral SFC on a 3 × 20-mm column packed with 1.8-μm particles facilitated by a low-dispersion chromatograph. Chromatographia 82:537–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berger TA (2017) Preliminary kinetic evaluation of an immobilized polysaccharide sub-2 μm column using a low dispersion supercritical fluid chromatograph. J Chromatogr A 1510:82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Pauw R, Shoykhet K, Desmet G, Broeckhoven K (2015) Understanding and diminishing the extra-column band broadening effects in supercritical fluid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 1403:132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barhate CL, Wahab MF, Tognarelli DJ, Berger TA, Armstrong DW (2016) Instrument idiosyncracies affect in the performance of ultrafast chiral and achiral supercritical fluid chromatography. Anal Chem 88:8664–8672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berger TA (2016) Characterizing pressure issues due to turbulent flow in tubing, in ultra-fast chiral supercritical fluid chromatography at up to 580 bar. J Chromatogr A 1475:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Pauw R, Choikhet K, Desmet G, Broeckhoven K (2014) Occurence of turbulent flow conditions in supercritical fluid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 1361:277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sternberg JC (1996) Extracolumn contributions to chromatographic bandspreading. In: Giddings JC, Kelly RA (eds) Advances in chromatography, vol 2. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SFC Solutions, Inc.EnglewoodUSA

Personalised recommendations