Interested in linking to "Separations Anxieties "?
You may use the Headline, Deck, Byline and URL of this article on your Web site. To link to this article, select and copy the HTML code below and paste it on your own Web site.
Chromatography is a continuously evolving science, and not a month goes by that some column or media manufacturer doesn’t tout the “next big thing.” In his 30 years in the business, Tom Jupille, founding consultant of Separation Science Associates, has seen enough to distinguish between the wheat and chaff. Jupille, who also presides over the eminently popular Chromatography Forum (www.chromforum.com), agreed to answer some of the pressing chromatography questions of the day.
P.M.: What have been the true innovations in HPLC equipment over the past year or so?
T.J.: On the analytical side, the continuing trend is “faster and smaller.” The efficiency of HPLC (measured by the infamous “theoretical plates”) has been roughly constant for a generation. The difference is that we are now generating 10,000 plates in 3-minute separations, compared to 30 minutes a couple of decades ago. This trend is continuing with the jump in operating pressure capability from about 5,000 psi to 10-15,000 psi over the past couple of years.
P.M.: Are you seeing more interest in chromatography for small molecules? What technologies (simulated moving bed, etc.) are driving this interest? What is limiting it?
T.J.: Process-scale chromatography of small molecules has always been a last resort, in large part because of the costs of the solvents required (chromatography will typically consume 5 to 10 times more solvent than something like a recrystalization or an extraction). There is some evidence that process-scale supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) is changing the rules of the game by allowing the use of cheap, “green” mobile phases based on CO2. SFC is proving itself today in chiral purification; it remains to be seen whether increasing familiarization with the technology will extend that to other applications.
P.M.: Are new silicas significantly better than old ones? Which stand up best?
T.J.: Yes. The big (conceptual) improvement occurred a decade and a half ago with the realization that the purity of the underlying silica (especially with regard to residual heavy metal ions) had a tremendous influence on the chromatographic properties. The resulting “type B” (basic) silicas have now become the standard. While the materials continue to get better, the improvements are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
The exception to that last statement is the development of “hybrid” silicas which incorporate a certain amount of alkyl functionality in the silica backbone. That provides a material with higher stability at high pH and overcomes what has been a major limitation of silica-based column packings.
P.M.: Disposables are catching on, but what’s their future?
T.J.: If I could accurately forecast the future, I’d be rich! That said, analytical HPLC columns, at $300 or so each, are actually “disposable” in the sense that it is usually more cost-effective to replace them rather than repack them when they die. If you assume a typical column lifetime of 1,000 injections, that works out to about 30 cents per sample in column costs.
If, as I suspect, you mean “one-shot” disposable: unless someone comes up with a 30¢ column, I think that their use will be confined to the “upstream” (sample prep) side of the analytical process: vials, solid-phase-extraction (SPE) cartridges, membrane filters, etc.
P.M.: Are membrane adsorbers up to par with traditional columns? What are their limitations?
T.J.: They’re different animals. One way of looking at HPLC is as a technology that can reliably deliver separation efficiencies of 10,000 plates. Without bogging down in the math, this means that an HPLC column can completely separate two compounds whose chemical interactions (with the chromatography system) differ by about 10%. That’s one extreme. At the other extreme, if you have large differences in chemistry, you can do the separation with one “plate” using standard techniques like liquid-liquid extraction. Membranes occupy a middle ground of sorts, offering a few tens of plates.
P.M.: What’s the latest you’re hearing regarding the enhancement and monitoring of column performance and retention? Is there a fountain of youth?
T.J.: Columns are cheap; time is valuable. In my experience, “consumables” (solvents, columns, vial, filters, etc.), in total, amount to less than 25% of the cost of “people.” There are all kinds of “fountain of youth” column revitalization tricks, but most of them take more time than they are worth.
Monitoring is a different story. Any validated pharmaceutical method has “system suitability” specifications which must be met before results from the method can be accepted. Control charting of system suitability results is common sense for any method which is run regularly.
P.M.: Why is it that manufacturers of silica-based columns do not recommend using low-pH mobile phases, such as those with TFA (trifluoroacetic acid)?
T.J.: The majority of reversed-phase HPLC columns use a “silyl ether” (Si-O-Si-) linkage to attach the bonded phase to the underlying silica. That Si-O-Si bond is subject to acid-catalyzed hydrolysis (the stoichiometry even works out: Si-O-Si + H2O → SiOH + SiOH). The hydrophobic bonded phase shields the bond to some extent, but the lifetime of most columns will drop as the pH gets much below 3. TFA is a strong enough acid that it drops the pH down to the low 2s. There are ways of shielding that silyl ether (for example, using hydrophobic side chains on the bonded phase), so some columns are reasonably stable down below pH 2, but the consequence is often decreased stability at high pH.
PharmaManufacturing.com is the site for knowledge, news and analysis for manufacturing and other professionals working in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotech industries.