4.6 Article

Quantitative evaluation of models for solvent-based, on-column focusing in liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1409, 期 -, 页码 116-124

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.07.038

关键词

Volume overload; On-column focusing; Large volume injections; Capillary HPLC

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01MH104386]
  2. National Science Foundation [DGE-1247842]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

On-column focusing or preconcentration is a well-known approach to increase concentration sensitivity by generating transient conditions during the injection that result in high solute retention. Preconcentration results from two phenomena: (I) solutes are retained as they enter the column. Their velocities are k'-dependent and lower than the mobile phase velocity and (2) zones are compressed due to the step-gradient resulting from the higher elution strength mobile phase passing through the solute zones. Several workers have derived the result that the ratio of the eluted zone width (in time) to the injected time width is the ratio k(2)/k(1), where 10 is the retention factor of a solute in the sample solvent and k(2) is the retention factor in the mobile phase (isocratic). Mills et al. proposed a different factor. To date, neither of the models has been adequately tested. The goal of this work was to evaluate quantitatively these two models. We used n-alkyl esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens) as solutes. By making large injections to create obvious volume overload, we could measure accurately the ratio of widths (eluted/injected) over a range of values of k(1) and k(2). The Mills et al. model does not fit the data. The data are in general agreement with the factor k(2)/k(1), but focusing is about 10% better than the prediction. We attribute the extra focusing to the fact that the second, compression, phenomenon provides a narrower zone than that expected for the passage of a step gradient through the zone. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据