## Abstract The influence of the mobile‐phase composition on the retention of eight model substances in different RP‐HPLC systems with a C~30~ alkyl bonded stationary phase has been studied. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of four valuable retention models assuming the partitio
Retention process in reversed phase TLC systems with polar bonded stationary phases
✍ Scribed by Wojciech Zapała; Monika Waksmundzka-Hajnos
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2005
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 147 KB
- Volume
- 28
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1615-9306
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
The retention of a solute in RP chromatography is a very complex process which depends on many factors. Therefore, the study of the influence of a mobile phase modifier concentration on the retention in different reversed phase chromatographic systems is very important for understanding the rules governing retention and mechanisms of substance separation in a chromatographic process. Composition changes and the nature of mobile phases enable tuning of the separated analytes' retention over a wide range of retention parameters and optimization of the chromatographic process as well. Optimization of the chromatographic process can be achieved by several different methods; one of them is the so-called interpretative strategy. The key approach adopted in this strategy is the implementation of adequate retention models that couple the retention of solute with the composition of a mixed mobile phase. The use of chemically bonded stationary phases composed of partially non-bonded silica matrix and organic ligands bonded to its surface in everyday chromatography practice leads to questions of the correct definition of the retention model and the dominant retention mechanism in such chromatographic systems. The retention model for an accurate prediction of retention factor as a function of modifier concentration and the heterogeneity of the adsorbent surface should be taken into consideration. In this work the influence of mobile-phase composition on the retention of sixteen model substances such as phenols, quinolines, and anilines used as test analytes in different RP-TLC systems with CN-, NH2-, and Diol-silica polar bonded stationary phases has been studied. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of three valuable retention models assumed as the partition, adsorption/partition, and adsorption mechanism of retention. All the models were verified for different RP-TLC systems by three statistical criteria. The results of investigations presented in this work demonstrate that the best agreement between the experimental and calculated Rf values was obtained by the use of new-generation retention models, which assume heterogeneity of adsorbent surface. The results reported here show that heterogeneity of the adsorbent surface may be important in analysis of the elution process in liquid chromatography. Consideration of the goodness of fit for the experimental data to the examined retention models is in conformity with the adsorption mechanism of retention on all polar bonded stationary phases in most eluent systems for most investigated compounds.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract The retention behavior of aromatic hydrocarbons and dansylamino acids on cation‐exchangers modified with alkylammonium ions has been examined by microcolumn liquid chromatography. Several parameters affected the retention of analytes, involving concentration of the modifier in the mobil
The retention behavior of condensed large polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons has been investigated with diphenylsilica stationary phases in reversed-phase microcolumn liquid chromatography. The results were correlated with two parameters which indicate size and shape of the molecules. Since the result
## Abstract In an effort to gain enhancement of selectivity in reversed‐phase liquid chromatography, retention was tuned in this study by introducing short and medium straight‐chained‐length alkanol additives (methanol (MeOH), ethanol, 1‐propanol, 1‐butanol, 1‐pentanol, 1‐hexanol or 1‐heptanol) at