ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Gone in Seconds: Praxis, Performance, and Peculiarities of Ultrafast Chiral Liquid Chromatography with Superficially Porous Particles
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Gone in Seconds: Praxis, Performance, and Peculiarities of Ultrafast Chiral Liquid Chromatography with Superficially Porous Particles
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019, United States
AZYP LLC, 700 Planetarium Place, Arlington, Texas 76019, United States
*Phone: (817) 272-0632. Fax (817)-272-0619. E-mail: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Analytical Chemistry

Cite this: Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 18, 9137–9148
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5b00715
Published May 6, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

A variety of brush-type chiral stationary phases (CSPs) were developed using superficially porous particles (SPPs). Given their high efficiencies and relatively low back pressures, columns containing these particles were particularly advantageous for ultrafast “chiral” separations in the 4–40 s range. Further, they were used in all mobile phase modes and with high flow rates and pressures to separate over 60 pairs of enantiomers. When operating under these conditions, both instrumentation and column packing must be modified or optimized so as not to limit separation performance and quality. Further, frictional heating results in axial thermal gradients of up to 16 °C and radial temperature gradients up to 8 °C, which can produce interesting secondary effects in enantiomeric separations. It is shown that the kinetic behavior of various CSPs can differ from one another as much as they differ from the well-studied C18 reversed phase media. Three additional interesting aspects of this work are (a) the first kinetic evidence of two different chiral recognition mechanisms, (b) a demonstration of increased efficiencies at higher flow rates for specific separations, and (c) the lowest reduced plate height yet reported for a CSP.

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society

For much of 3 decades, the development and study of chromatographic enantiomeric separations have been dominated by investigations focused on selectivity. This is not surprising given the unique position of chiral separations in chromatography where conventional strategies used for all other molecules are completely ineffective for enantiomers. Hence, the highest impact studies involved conceiving, understanding, and optimizing the use of new and better chiral selectors. (1-20) Numerous thermodynamic and mechanistic studies as well as evaluations of solvent and additive effects continue even today. (21-24)
As the field of “chiral separations” has matured, it has focused on other, more typical chromatographic concerns including speed, efficiency, and kinetic effects. While “chiral separations” are ultimately affected by the same parameters as achiral separations, they can have some idiosyncrasies (vide infra) as compared to the most extensively studied systems which typically involve reversed phase liquid chromatography on C18 or analogous stationary phases.
The demand for fast and efficient achiral separations provided the impetus for researchers to explore new avenues to increase throughput of chiral screening and analysis. Welch et al. first used multiparallel chiral screening and method development systems that provided method development times of ∼1 h. (25) Hamman et al. used supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) at high flow rates, short columns, and a gradient to obtain a 2.5 min screening method. (26) Shortly after, Ai and co-workers developed a bonded sub-1 μm mesoporous silica based cyclodextrin chiral column and published a few 1–6 min enantiomeric separations. (27) Concurrently, Gasparrini et al. studied a bonded brush-type (pi-complex) phase using sub-2 μm fully porous particles (FPPs) and demonstrated a few normal phase enantiomeric separations in the 15–40 s range. (28-30)
More recently, superficially porous particles (SPPs) for achiral separations have allowed for column efficiencies comparable to sub-2 μm FPPs while using conventional HPLCs and column hardware. (31, 32) There have been numerous empirical and theoretical comparisons of these approaches when used in a reversed phase (C18) format. (33-35) SPPs are able to decrease all contributions to band broadening (i.e., longitudinal diffusion, eddy dispersion, and stationary phase mass transfer contributions). (35) Initially it was thought that better packing of SPPs was due to their having narrower particle size distributions than FPPs, but it was later shown that better packing homogeneity across the column (i.e., from wall to center of the bed) is largely responsible for the decreased eddy dispersion contribution. (36, 37) Since, SPP columns are generally better packed than FPP columns, they can yield reduced plate heights of 1.3–1.5 for columns packed with conventional achiral stationary phases, whereas FPP based columns typically have reduced plate heights greater than 2.0. (33) Also, the shell thickness of SPPs leads to a shorter trans-particle path length which can decrease mass transfer contributions to band broadening for large molecules with small diffusion coefficients and smaller molecules that have slow adsorption–desorption kinetics. (31, 38, 39) This is particularly important at higher flow rates.
The possible benefits of SPPs in other important but more specialized areas of LC are less explored. Chankvetadze compared a polysaccharide based chiral selector coated on FPPs and SPPs in both nano-LC and HPLC. (40, 41) In the latter, an obvious decrease in enantiomeric selectivity was noted for the SPP based material. Gritti and Guiochon’s theoretical treatment of the same polysaccharide based chiral selector indicated that a 10% gain in resolution (Rs) could be possible due to the decreased plate heights afforded by the SPPs. (42) However, this estimated value was based on an assumption that the SPP based polysaccharide column would have a similar enantiomeric selectivity value as the analogous FPP based column which, as noted, has not been obtainable to date. Most recently, Spudeit et al. presented the first successful and practical SPP CSP. (39) This work showed that brush-type chiral selectors (i.e., isopropylcarbamated cyclofructan 6) have a higher chiral selector load (per surface area). This plus the observed increase in column efficiency for the SPP based CSP resulted in improved enantiomeric separations, while maintaining the same enantiomeric selectivity as FPP based CSPs. (39) Further, the SPP CSP maintained this performance with 50–75% lower retentions. When comparing constant retention modes, the Rs values obtained using the SPP column were far greater than the FPP columns. It was also noted that as flow rates increased (e.g., to 3 mL/min), the resolution per analysis time greatly improved for the SPP column (by 18–67%) meaning that high-throughput screening would benefit from such columns. (39)
In this work, a broad range of analyte types and polarities including pharmaceuticals, catalysts, peptides, amino acids, primary amines, and biaryls among others were baseline separated on a variety of SPP brush type CSPs that are very effective for ultrafast chiral separations (∼4–40 s range). It is demonstrated that they can be performed in any mobile phase conditions or mode, i.e., reversed phase, normal phase, polar organic, and HILIC. Finally, the practice of ultrafast chiral LC often produces interesting and unusual consequences that must be recognized, dealt with, and/or properly understood for optimal performance.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Materials

All HPLC solvents and reagents for reactions were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). Cyclofructan-6 (CF6) and cylcofructan-7 (CF7) derivatized with isopropyl carbamate and dimethylphenyl carbamate groups, respectively, were synthesized by AZYP LLC (Arlington, TX). The 2.7 μm superficially porous silica particles with a surface area of 120 m2/g and pore size of 120 Å were provided by Agilent Technologies (Wilmington, DE). The core is 1.7 μm in diameter and the surrounding shell thickness is 0.5 μm. The fully porous 2.1 and 3 μm silica particles were purchased from Daiso (Tokyo, Japan) and Glantreo (Cork, Ireland), respectively. The 2.1 μm fully porous particles have a surface area of 479 m2/g and pore size of 91 Å, whereas the 3 μm fully porous particles have a surface area of 300 m2/g and pore size of 100 Å. Tröger’s bases were obtained as indicated in the literature. (43) All solvent mixtures are given in (v/v).

Synthesis of Stationary Phases

All reactions were carried out in anhydrous solvents under a dry argon atmosphere. The synthetic procedures for the six stationary phases employed in this work have already been published. (10, 13, 16, 18, 44) The first chiral stationary phases explored were cyclofructan based as they have recently proven to be unique chiral selectors. (18, 45-50) The cyclofructan-6 derivatized isopropyl carbamate (CF6-P) and cyclofructan-7 dimethylphenyl carbamate (CF7-DMP) were bonded to silica particles under anhydrous conditions as described previously. (18) The 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin bonded silica (CD-HP) was synthesized via a proprietary bonding procedure. (10, 44) Macrocylic antibiotics vancomycin, teicoplanin, and teicoplanin aglycone were covalently attached to silica surface as described by Armstrong et al. (13, 16) Each of the above chiral selectors were bonded to 2.7 μm SPPs. The 2.1 and 3 μm fully porous particles were functionalized with CF6-P. The CHN analyses of the phases and chiral selector coverage per surface are provided in Table S2 in the Supporting Information.
Each stationary phase was slurry packed with a pneumatically driven Haskel pump (DSTV-122) into 10 cm × 0.46 cm i.d., 5 cm × 0.46 cm i.d., and 3 cm × 0.46 cm i.d. stainless steel columns (IDEX Health and Science, Oak Harbor, WA). See the Supporting Information for the packing method (Figure S1). Commercial LARIHC CF6-P, LARIHC CF7-DMP, Chirobiotic V, Chirobiotic T, Chirobiotic TAG, and Cyclobond I 2000 HP-RSP columns (fully porous 5 μm particles, 25 cm × 0.46 cm i.d.) which were used for comparative purposes were provided by AZYP LLC, Astec, and Supelco/Sigma-Aldrich.

Instrumentation

All ultrafast separations were performed on an Agilent 1290 Infinity series UHPLC system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) equipped with a quaternary pump, an auto-sampler, and a diode array detector. Routine separations were performed on an Agilent 1260 HPLC equipped with a quaternary pump, an auto-sampler, and a diode array detector. An inlet filter was installed between the pump outlet and the auto-sampler injection valve to prevent clogging of 75 μm tubings. For fast separations, the data collection rate was set at 160 Hz with a response time of 0.016 s, unless otherwise stated. The thermostated column compartment and the column switching 6-port valve were bypassed to minimize the length of connection tubings. The instrument was further optimized to reduce extra-column effects by using an ultralow dispersion kit from Agilent (P/N 5067-5189). The kit consists of an ultralow dispersion needle and needle seat, two 75 μm i.d. stainless steel connection tubings, and a detector flow cell with a volume standard deviation V(σ) of 0.6 μL. Alternatively, 75 μm i.d. polyether ether ketone (PEEK) nanoViper connection tubings (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA) were also employed. The instrument was controlled by OpenLAB CDS ChemStation software (Rev. C.01.06 [61], Agilent Technologies 2001–2014) in Microsoft Windows 8.1 (see the Supporting Information for the calculation of peak parameters). The reported percentages of mobile phases (m.p.) are listed as volume/volume (v/v).

Axial Temperature Gradient in Mobile Viscous Frictional Heating

The effect of viscous frictional heating of the mobile phases in the SPP columns was studied by wrapping the column in an insulating sheet (at room temperature) and inserting a Mastech thermocouple MS8222H (Pittsburgh, PA) inside the column outlet with the help of a screw cap. The flow rate was varied and the resulting temperature was monitored after 10 min of equilibration.

Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Figure 1A provides comparisons of different particle size fully porous particles (FPPs) and superficially porous particles (SPPs) which have the same bonded chiral selector (via the same chemistry) and with the same mobile phase. These chromatograms were generated using conventional HPLCs with conventional conditions and column sizes (i.e., 1.0 mL/min flow rate and 5 cm × 0.46 cm i.d. columns). Clearly using the same mobile phase, the SPP-based CSP provided both the greatest efficiency and shortest analysis time as compared to all FPPs, including the 2.1 μm particles (Figure 1A). However, according to Gritti and Guiochon, a better comparison of such columns is realized when resolutions (RS) are compared at constant retention (Figure 1B). (42) They also indicated that a SPP’s core to particle diameter ratio (ρ) can be related to its gain in resolution. Specifically ρ values between 0.5 and 0.95 at constant retention factor (k) can slightly improve the resolution. Interestingly, recent work on a brush-type CSP showed a resolution increase of 20%. (39) In Figure 1B, the increase in resolution of the SPP-CSP over both 3 and 2.1 μm FPPs is ∼30%, which is quite impressive. The SPP-CSP used here had a ρ value of 0.63 (see Experimental Section), which is within the optimal range (vide supra). (42) A direct comparison of the efficiencies, reduced plate heights, and tailing factors of current commercial columns (5 μm particles) and the analogous CSPs on 2.7 μm SPPs is given in Table 1. The 3–4-fold increase in efficiencies is impressive but not totally unexpected given the smaller SPP particle diameter. However, the reduced plate heights of the SPPs also are up to 2 times smaller and with comparable or better peak symmetries. The reduced plate height (h) of 1.6 for the CF7-DMP SPP is the smallest reported for any CSP on any particle to date. Given these results, it is clear that SPP based CSPs should be particularly advantageous for ultrafast chiral separations.
Table 1. Comparison of Theoretical Plates/Meter (N/m), Reduced Plate Height (h), and USP Tailing Factor Using a Standard Achiral Probe 1,3-Dinitrobenzene with 70:30 Heptane–Ethanol at Reduced Velocity of 4.5 (1 mL/min for 2.7 μm SPP, 0.6 mL/min for 5 μm FPP)
stationary phaseN/mahtailing factorb
Stationary Phases Bonded to 2.7 μm SPPs
CF6-Pc172 0002.21.1
CF7-DMPd221 0001.61.2
teicoplanind165 0002.31.0
teicoplanin aglyconec133 0002.81.3
vancomycinc173 0002.10.9
hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrind181 0002.01.3
    
Commercial Columns Packed with 5.0 μm FPPs (25 cm × 0.46 cm)
LARIHC CF6-P70 0002.91.1
LARIHC CF7-DMP59 0003.41.2
Chirobiotic-T54 0003.70.9
Chirobiotic-TAG50 0004.01.1
Chirobiotic-V57 0003.50.9
Cyclobond I 2000 HP-RSP37 0005.41.1
a

N/m calculated by half height method.

b

USP tailing factor T = W0.05/2f, where W0.05 = peak width at 5% peak height and f = distance from the leading edge of the peak to the peak maximum at 5% peak height.

c

Dimensions of these columns were 10 cm × 0.46 cm.

d

Dimensions of these columns were 5 cm × 0.46 cm.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Enantiomeric separations of BINAM on CF6-P bonded to SPPs and FPPs at 1.0 mL/min, Tcol = 25 °C. All columns were 5 cm × 0.46 cm in dimensions. (A) Constant MP mode, MP = 92:8 heptane−ethanol. (B) Constant retention mode, MP = (i) 82:18 heptane−ethanol, (ii) 85:15 heptane−ethanol, (iii) 82:18 heptane−ethanol, and (iv) 92:8 heptane−ethanol.

In the literature, the current accepted time limit for being labeled as an ultrafast chromatographic separation seems to be ∼1 min. (51, 52) This is probably a reasonable choice since typical HPLC autoinjectors cycle at ∼1 injection per min (or down to 0.5 min for UHPLC). Hence in ultrafast LC, the chromatographic separations can be completed more quickly than new samples can be injected (by conventional injection devices). Figure 2 and Table 2 show over 60 such baseline enantiomeric separations. The table covers a wide structural variety of enantiomers. Most separations are <40 s and almost a quarter of those are on the order of 10 or fewer seconds. Furthermore, these are accomplished in all mobile phase modes, i.e., normal phase, reversed phase, and polar organic modes and on a variety of bonded CSPs. Theoretically, we could screen ∼90 to 360 chiral analytes per hour which could use less solvent than any other current method. However, this is restricted to ∼60 to, at most, 120 samples/hour because of instrumental autoinjector limitations. Certainly, this is not the first nor the only example of chromatographic potential being limited by instrumental deficiencies. (51, 53) Indeed, as discussed in the following paragraphs, the separations shown in Figure 2 and listed in Table 2 cannot be achieved under standard HPLC conditions used for Figure 1.
Table 2. Chromatographic Data for Optimized Ultrafast Chiral Separations on Six Different Chiral Stationary Phases (CSP) Bonded to 2.7 μm Superficially Porous Particlesa
Table a

All separations were performed on an Agilent 1290 UHPLC instrument optimized for low extra column volume. See Supporting Information for more information on RS. Column dimensions for all separations were 3 cm × 0.46 cm and column temperature was ambient (∼22 °C) unless otherwise stated.

Table b

T = teicoplanin, TAG = teicoplanin aglycone, CF7-DMP = Cyclofructan-7 dimethylphenyl carbamate, CF6-P = Cyclofructan-6 isopropyl carbamate, V = vancomycin, CD-HP = hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin.

Table c

Dimensions of column = 5 cm × 0.46 cm.

Table d

Dimensions of column = 10 cm × 0.46 cm.

Table e

Data for the 1st eluted enantiomers.

Table f

Tcol = 60 °C.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Representative ultrafast enantiomeric separations on each of 6 chiral stationary phases: (A) vancomycin SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = methanol, 4.95 mL/min, Tcol = 60 °C; (B) teicoplanin aglycone SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = methanol, 4.70 mL/min, Tcol = 60 °C; (C) hydroxylpropyl-β-cyclodextrin SPP (5 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 97:3:0.3:0.2 acetonitrile–methanol–TFA–TEA, 4.75 mL/min, Tcol = 60 °C; (D) teicoplanin SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 40:60 water–methanol, 3.00 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C; (E) CF7-DMP SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 90:10 heptane–ethanol, 4.80 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C; (F) CF6-P SPP (10 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 70:30:0.3:0.2 acetonitrile–methanol–TFA–TEA, 4.50 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C.

Effect of Packing on Columns Used for Ultrafast Chiral LC

Accomplishing ultrafast separations in HPLC generally requires higher flow rates, higher pressures, and shorter columns. Consequently, both the column packing quality and permeability are important. Commercial packing procedures are usually trade secrets. When packing identical columns with different slurry solvents, it was found that the use of a “well dispersed” slurry produced columns of >2.3× higher efficiencies and slightly different permeability according to Darcy’s law (see Figures S1 and S2 and the associated text followed in the Supporting Information).

Detector Sampling Rates and Response Times

The detector sampling rate (a.k.a. sampling frequency, data acquisition frequency or rate, etc.) and the detector response time become increasingly important for rapidly eluting analytes and highly efficient separations as demonstrated with SPPs. Under certain circumstances, peak shapes, peak width, and baseline noise can vary considerably as a result of detector settings. There is some debate as to the exact cause and nature of these effects. (54) We will address this debate in a subsequent communication but will only present the empirical results, as it impacts enantiomeric separations herein. Figure 3 shows the effect of detector sampling rate and response time (for an Agilent 1290 UHPLC) on the efficiency (N), resolution (RS), and baseline noise for six ultrafast enantiomeric separations performed under otherwise identical conditions. Note that with Agilent ChemStation software, the detector sampling rate and response times are coupled and the operator cannot independently change or “unpair” these two parameters. The observed effects are the combined result of these two parameters. At the lowest sampling rate and longest response time (bottom curve, Figure 3), the separation is not discernible, the apparent efficiency and resolution is poor, but there is little baseline noise. The separation parameters improve tremendously as the sampling rate increases and the coupled time constant decreases up to about the 80 Hz curve. Concurrently the noise level increases (see 80× zoom in Figure 3). The default setting on this instrument is 2.5 Hz. It should be noted that with other instruments (Dionex and Shimadzu, for example) the operator can independently set these detector settings which could relate in an array of unwanted or suboptimal combinations. It is apparent that to maintain high efficiency and good resolution when doing ultrafast separations that detector coupled sampling rates should be ≥40 Hz and response time ≤0.13 s (Figure 3). For enantiomeric separations <10 s, even higher rates and lower times are needed. If one is simply screening samples and concentration is not a factor, the choice of detector settings are straightforward (e.g., 80 or 160 Hz). However, if one is examining either very low amounts of an analyte or enantiomeric purities, the higher baseline noise (top curve in Figure 3) can obscure low level enantiomeric impurities (e.g., <1% and especially <0.1%) and decrease the accuracy and precision of the measurement.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Effect of detector sampling rate and response time on efficiency (N) and resolution (Rs) in ultrafast chromatographic separations. BINAM analyzed on CF7-DMP SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 90:10 heptane–ethanol, 4.0 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C; 1 Hz = 1 s–1.

Extra Column Band Broadening Effects on Ultrafast Separations

It is well established that extra column band broadening is a concern when using short and/or narrow-bore columns that often are packed with smaller diameter particles, as in UHPLC. (55) In this regard, chiral separations are no different, especially when doing ultrafast separations where it is essential to maintain high efficiencies. Figure 4 illustrates this assessment. A “stock” UHPLC was tested (top chromatogram, Figure 4) and then the “extra column parts” of the instrument were replaced with smaller volume versions. Using the variance (σ2) calculated from second moment analysis, intrinsic column efficiencies were calculated in each case, reflecting the true column efficiency of 4750 plates for a 20 s separation (see the Supporting Information). The σratio2 was also calculated using the relationship σratio2 = σsystem2column+system2. As can be seen, a complete system optimization produced a decrease in the extra column variance ratio from 26% to 3% and this resulted in an ultrafast enantiomeric separation that went from ∼71 000 plates/m and a resolution of 1.4 to ∼94 000 plates/m and a resolution of 1.7.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Optimization of Agilent 1290 UHPLC for ultrafast separations by replacing stock parts with low extra column volume alternatives. Tröger’s base analyzed on CF7-DMP SPP (5 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 70:30 heptane–ethanol, 2.5 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C. Percent extra column contribution is expressed as σratio2 = σsystem2column+system2 (see the Supporting Information for moment analysis). (A) Stock condition: stock injection needle and needle seat, 170 μm i.d. connection tubing (22 cm total) with IDEX 10-32 finger tight fittings, and a 1.0 μL detector flow cell. (B) Optimized conditions: ultralow dispersion needle and needle seat, 75 μm i.d. nanoViper connection tubing (22 cm total), 0.6 μL detector flow cell.

Kinetic and Thermal (Frictional) Considerations

Both the general topic of column efficiency and the more specific issue of frictional heating have been considered for columns containing small particles (e.g., <2 μm diameter) and for narrow bore columns. (56) Most of these studies focused on reversed phase C18 based column formats. (57-61) There are few kinetic studies on small particle and SPP chiral stationary phases (CSPs) and none on the effect of frictional heating on these CSPs. (40-42) As stated previously, CSPs are subject to the same thermodynamic and kinetic constraints as other column types. However, the manifestation of these kinetic terms can differ as much from one CSP to another as they do from conventional C18 or silica gel stationary phases. Likewise, the effect of frictional heating and column temperature gradients has been evaluated and discussed for C18 reversed phase columns. (57, 59, 61) For SPP-based CSPs, differences as well as any peculiarities can be revealed by any of the related kinetic plots (van Deemter, reduced van Deemter, or Knox). (56) For the purpose of this discussion, we will use the standard Giddings’ coupled van Deemter equation of:(1)where H is the height equivalent to a theoretical plate, A is the eddy dispersion term, B is the longitudinal diffusion term, CS is stationary phase mass transfer, CSM is mass transfer in the stagnant mobile phase (sometime treated as “short range” eddy dispersion), CM is the moving mobile phase mass transfer term, and u is the linear velocity (m/s) of the mobile phase. (62)
Figure 5 shows four unique sets of van Deemter plots done in the (A) polar organic mode, (B) normal phase mode, and (C and D) in the reversed phase mode under two different temperature conditions. Each set of curves contains one pair of enantiomers and at least one achiral test molecule. The experimental conditions are given in the legend. The solvent temperature at the column outlet was measured at different linear velocities and mobile phase modes (see the Experimental Section and Supporting Information).

Figure 5

Figure 5. van Deemter plots for chiral and achiral analytes in polar organic mode, normal phase, and reversed phase on 2.7 μm SPP CSPs. (A) CF6-P SPP (10 cm × 0.46 cm i.d.), MP = 80:20:0.3:0.2 acetonitrile–methanol–TFA–TEA, Tcol = 25 °C (thermostated). (B) CF7-DMP SPP (10 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 90:10 heptane–ethanol, Tcol = 25 °C (thermostated). (C) Teicoplanin bonded SPP (5 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 90:10 water–methanol, Tcol = 25 °C (thermostated). (D) Tcol = 22 °C (not thermostated), other conditions were identical to part C. See the Supporting Information for temperature effects on selectivities. The k values reported are for a flow rate of 1 mL/min.

The “polar organic” plots in Figure 5A indicate what some would consider to be a normal “well behaved” system. The achiral void volume marker (1,3-dinitrobenzene) has the lowest H at all linear velocities above ∼0.5 mm/s and the flattest rise at higher velocities. The least retained (first eluted) enantiomer and a retained achiral analyte (nicotinamide) had almost identical efficiencies at all linear velocities and similar, slightly greater slopes at higher linear velocities. The most retained enantiomer is generally thought to have the greatest resistance to stationary phase mass transfer as it is subject to a greater number of associative stereochemical interactions and often reorientation of the enantiomer. (22, 63) This appears to be so as the Hmin is at a slightly lower linear velocity for the second enantiomer compared to the first enantiomer and the achiral probe, indicating an increase in the CS term.
Figure 5B shows the analogous plots for the enantiomers of Tröger’s base as well as retained and unretained achiral probe molecules in the normal phase mode. The relative kinetic behaviors of these molecules are quite different than those in Figure 5A. The plots of the enantiomers are almost identical at all linear velocities. However, this behavior is believed to be related to two different things, one of which relates to the stereochemical recognition mechanism while the other is related to general column properties. The similar kinetic behaviors of the two enantiomers indicate that chiral recognition is likely due to the presence of repulsive (steric) interactions rather than multiple associative interactions with one of the enantiomers. For example, the minimum 3-point of interaction needed for chiral recognition could come from one associative interaction plus 2 steric interactions with one of the enantiomers. The only requirement of this model is that the total energy of association be greater than that of the combined steric repulsive interactions. Such systems have been proposed previously, but this is the first time kinetic data has been used to support such a scenario. (22, 63)
Also important is the relative behavior of the retained and unretained achiral analytes in Figure 5B which is opposite to that in Figure 5A. The unretained void volume marker (1,3,5-tri-tert-butylbenzene) has worst efficiency at all linear velocities but a flatter rise than the enantiomers at higher linear velocities. The retained achiral molecule (1,3-dinitrobenzene) exhibited the highest efficiency at all linear velocities and had the flattest rise at higher linear velocities. This type of behavior has been reported previously in a few instances for well packed, high efficiency columns. (55, 64) The van Deemter curves in Figure 5B were produced using a standard HPLC with a conventional injector, tubings, column compartment, and detector flow cell. When the extra column effects were minimized (Figure 4), the observed efficiencies of the 1,3,5-tri-tert-butylbenzene and 1,3-dinitrobenzene were nearly identical. This clearly illustrates the pronounced effects of extra column band broadening on observed efficiencies in such van Deemter curves. Indeed, the highest efficiency column (CF7-DMP with a reduced plate height (h = 1.6)) was chosen for this example in an ultrafast format. Clearly under these conditions, one must be aware at all times of extra column effects and how they can generate apparent anomalous behaviors. (56)
Figure 5C,D is for the same reversed phase enantiomeric separation and the same retained achiral analyte (1,3-dinitrobenzene). The only difference in these two series of experiments was that the column in Figure 5C was in a thermostated, temperature controlled, “still air device” set at 25 °C, while for Figure 5D the column was in ambient conditions (22 °C). It is well-known that teicoplanin chiral selectors strongly and selectively bind D-amino acid enantiomers and that this leads to greater resistance to mass transfer and broader peaks. This is confirmed by the upper plots for the more retained D-homophenylalanine in Figure 5C,D. Indeed no H minima vs linear velocity can be identified from these plots and the efficiencies are lower than those in the other mobile phase modes. It should be noted that such efficiencies can be greatly improved by judicious use of specific additives, but that is not the subject of this work. As in the polar organic mode, the curves for the first eluted (least retained) enantiomer and the achiral retained analyte (1,3-dinitrobenzene) are quite similar to one another and both show minima in the 0.5–1 mm/s region.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of these plots is the trend shown in Figure 5D. At linear velocities higher than ∼2.5 mm/s, the efficiencies of both enantiomers and 1,3-dinitrobenzene begin to improve significantly. This effect is most pronounced for the more retained D-homophenylalanine. It is well documented that two types of temperature gradients develop (axial and radial) when there is significant frictional heating. (57, 59, 61, 65) Eluents with the heat capacity and density of mobile phases used in Figure 5 (acetonitrile, heptane, and water) and operating pressures above 300 bar can easily generate axial temperature differentials of 10 °C. (61) In fact, when the flow averaged temperature was measured at the column outlet at various linear velocities in three different modes, the axial temperature differences ranged from 11 to 16 °C (see the Supporting Information Tables S3–S5). This axial variation in fast separations does not contribute to an increase in peak width. On the other hand, the peak efficiency is significantly affected by radial temperature gradients which change local viscosities, velocity profiles, and diffusion coefficients of analytes. (61, 65) A first order “approximation” of the maximum radial temperature difference ΔTR which can develop between the column center and the column wall is given by(2)where u is the superficial flow velocity in m/s (obtained by dividing the volumetric flow rate by the total cross sectional area of the column), dP/dz the change in pressure in the direction of the column axis (z) per unit length in N/m3, R the column radius in m, and λrad is the approximate thermal conductivity of the mobile phase in the radial direction in W/m °C. (65)
For example, in the normal phase mode (Figure 5B), the thermal conductivity of the heptane–ethanol mixture is approximately 0.13 W/m°C. (66) At low linear velocities, (1.67 mm/s or 1 mL/min, ΔP = 80 bar), the magnitude of the maximum radial temperature difference is 1 °C; however, as the linear velocity is increased to 5 mm/s (3 mL/min), the pressure drop is significant (250 bar), and the calculated maximal radial temperature gradient is 8 °C. Note that eq 1 is generally used for first order approximations, it has been shown that the calculated radial temperature gradients can overestimate the observed radial gradients because it ignores the compressibility of the eluent. Consequently the actual energy generated in the column is reduced by a factor of 2/3. (59) On the other hand, as in Figure 5D, when a water-rich mobile phase is in use (thermal conductivity of 0.55 W/m°C), a linear velocity of 1.67 mm/s (1 mL/min) generated a back pressure of 112 bar due to higher viscosity. The calculated value of ΔTR is only 1 °C, and at higher linear velocities, e.g., 5 mm/s (3 mL/min), a radial temperature difference of only 4 °C is developed. Also note than the axial temperature difference in Figure 5B,D was similar (∼12 °C). However, the data used in Figure 5B was from a thermostated column (walls ∼25 °C) while Figure 5D was not thermostated. Though, since heptane (Figure 5B) is far more compressible than water (Figure 5D), the energy produced is reduced by 2/3. However, it is clear from Figure 5D, that there are other factors, as in some chiral separations when resistance to mass transfer effects are more pronounced. In these interesting cases, such as a high thermal conductivity water rich mobile phase, the gain in efficiency from an improvement in mass transfer at higher axial temperature gradients is enough to visibly counter any smaller losses in efficiency due to radial temperature gradients and eddy dispersion. This possibility was noted early on by Halász (61) and is apparent in Figure 5D. See the Supporting Information for detailed temperature measurements and calculations.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The results of this study, indicate that (1) SPPs are advantageous for ultrafast and high efficiency chiral separations, (2) enantiomeric separations on the order of few seconds are now feasible in all mobile phases with bonded brush type CSPs, (3) kinetic behaviors can sometimes be used to shed light on chiral recognition mechanisms, (4) CSPs can show quite different kinetic profiles from each other and from achiral systems, (5) ultrafast chiral separations require optimized detection and minimization of extra column effects, (6) frictional heating effects must be accounted for in ultrafast separations as they can manifest themselves in disparate ways and to different degrees for various CSPs and mobile phase modes, (7) efficiencies and separation speeds for chiral analytes can now exceed those in capillary electrophoresis. Also it is feasible to expect that (8) SPPs may be advantageous for preparative separations when their high efficiencies, faster analyses times, and reduced solvent consumption compensate for lower chiral selector loading, (9) ultrafast SPP-CSPs may be attractive as the second dimension in 2D-LC because of their greater selectivity and orthogonality to conventional achiral stationary phases, and (10) real-time monitoring of product formation in asymmetric synthesis is possible with ultrafast chiral separations.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Peak parameter calculations, surface coverage of chiral selectors on silica, column permeability calculations, determination of extra-column contributions, and frictional heating measurements data. The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b00715.

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Daniel W. Armstrong - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019, United StatesAZYP LLC, 700 Planetarium Place, Arlington, Texas 76019, United States Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Darshan C. Patel - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019, United States
    • Zachary S. Breitbach - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019, United States
    • M. Farooq Wahab - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019, United States
    • Chandan L. Barhate - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019, United States
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The authors would like to acknowledge Agilent Technologies for providing the superficially porous particles. We also acknowledge the support of AZYP, LLC, Arlington, Texas.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 66 other publications.

  1. 1
    Davankov, V. A.; Rogozhin, S. V. J. Chromatogr. A 1971, 60, 280 283
  2. 2
    Mikes, F. E.; Boshart, G. J. Chromatogr. A 1978, 149, 455 464
  3. 3
    Pirkle, W. H.; Finn, J. M. J. Org. Chem. 1981, 46, 2935 2938
  4. 4
    Okamoto, Y.; Honda, S.; Okamoto, I.; Yuki, H.; Murata, S.; Noyori, R.; Takaya, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981, 103, 6971 6973
  5. 5
    Allenmark, S.; Bomgren, B.; Borén, H. J. Chromatogr. A 1983, 264, 63 68
  6. 6
    Armstrong, D. W.; Ward, T. J.; Armstrong, R. D.; Beesley, T. E. Science 1986, 232, 1132 1135
  7. 7
    Okamoto, Y.; Kawashima, M.; Yamamoto, K.; Hatada, K. Chem. Lett. 1984, 739 742
  8. 8
    Armstrong, D. W.; DeMond, W. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 1984, 22, 411 415
  9. 9
    Okamoto, Y.; Aburatani, R.; Fukumoto, T.; Hatada, K. Chem. Lett. 1987, 1857 1860
  10. 10
    Stalcup, A. M.; Chang, S. C.; Armstrong, D. W.; Pitha, J. J. Chromatogr. A 1990, 513, 181 194
  11. 11
    Armstrong, D. W.; Stalcup, A. M.; Hilton, M. L.; Duncan, J. D.; Faulkner, J. R., Jr.; Chang, S. C. Anal. Chem. 1990, 62, 1610 1615
  12. 12
    Pirkle, W. H.; Welch, C. J.; Lamm, B. J. Org. Chem. 1992, 57, 3854 3860
  13. 13
    Armstrong, D. W.; Tang, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhou, Y.; Bagwill, C.; Chen, J.-R. Anal. Chem. 1994, 66, 1473 1484
  14. 14
    Laemmerhofer, M.; Lindner, W. J. Chromatogr. A 1996, 741, 33 48
  15. 15
    Maier, N. M.; Nicoletti, L.; Lammerhofer, M.; Lindner, W. Chirality 1999, 11, 522 528
  16. 16
    Berthod, A.; Chen, X. H.; Kullman, J. P.; Armstrong, D. W.; Gasparrini, F.; D’Acquarica, I.; Villani, C.; Carotti, A. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 1767 1780
  17. 17
    Gasparrini, F.; Misiti, D.; Rompietti, R.; Villani, C. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1064, 25 38
  18. 18
    Sun, P.; Wang, C. L.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Zhang, Y.; Armstrong, D. W. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 10215 10226
  19. 19
    Sun, P.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 4904 4918
  20. 20
    Han, X.; He, L.; Zhong, Q.; Beesley, T. E.; Armstrong, D. W. Chromatographia 2006, 63, 13 23
  21. 21
    Péter, A.; Török, G.; Armstrong, D. W.; Tóth, G.; Tourwé, D. J. Chromatogr. A 1998, 828, 177 190
  22. 22
    Davankov, V. A. Chirality 1997, 9, 99 102
  23. 23
    Gasparrini, F.; Misiti, D.; Villani, C. Chirality 1992, 4, 447 458
  24. 24
    Oberleitner, W. R.; Maier, N. M.; Lindner, W. J. Chromatogr. A 2002, 960, 97 108
  25. 25
    Sajonz, P.; Schafer, W.; Gong, X.; Shultz, S.; Rosner, T.; Welch, C. J. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1145, 149 154
  26. 26
    Hamman, C.; Wong, M.; Aliagas, I.; Ortwine, D. F.; Pease, J.; Schmidt, D. E., Jr.; Victorino, J. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1305, 310 319
  27. 27
    Ai, F.; Li, L.; Ng, S.-C.; Tan, T. T. Y. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 7502 7506
  28. 28
    Cancelliere, G.; Ciogli, A.; D’Acquarica, I.; Gasparrini, F.; Kocergin, J.; Misiti, D.; Pierini, M.; Ritchie, H.; Simone, P.; Villani, C. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 990 999
  29. 29
    Kotoni, D.; Ciogli, A.; Molinaro, C.; D’Acquarica, I.; Kocergin, J.; Szczerba, T.; Ritchie, H.; Villani, C.; Gasparrini, F. Anal. Chem. 2012, 84, 6805 6813
  30. 30
    Cavazzini, A.; Marchetti, N.; Guzzinati, R.; Pierini, M.; Ciogli, A.; Kotoni, D.; D’Acquarica, I.; Villani, C.; Gasparrini, F. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2014, 63, 95 103
  31. 31
    Gritti, F.; Guiochon, G. LC–GC N. Am. 2012, 586 597
  32. 32
    Omamogho, J. O.; Nesterenko, E.; Connolly, D.; Glennon, J. LC–GC N. Am. 2012, 63 69
  33. 33
    DeStefano, J. J.; Langlois, T. J.; Kirkland, J. J. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2008, 46, 254 260
  34. 34
    Gritti, F. LC–GC N. Am. 2014, 928 940
  35. 35
    Broeckhoven, K.; Cabooter, D.; Desmet, G. J. Pharm. Anal 2013, 3, 313 323
  36. 36
    Bruns, S.; Stoeckel, D.; Smarsly, B. M.; Tallarek, U. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1268, 53 63
  37. 37
    Gritti, F.; Farkas, T.; Heng, J.; Guiochon, G. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218, 8209 8221
  38. 38
    Dolzan, M. D.; Spudeit, D. A.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Barber, W. E.; Micke, G. A.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1365, 124 130
  39. 39
    Spudeit, D. A.; Dolzan, M. D.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Barber, W. E.; Micke, G. A.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1363, 89 95
  40. 40
    Fanali, S.; D’Orazio, G.; Farkas, T.; Chankvetadze, B. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1269, 136 142
  41. 41
    Lomsadze, K.; Jibuti, G.; Farkas, T.; Chankvetadze, B. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1234, 50 55
  42. 42
    Gritti, F.; Guiochon, G. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1348, 87 96
  43. 43
    Weatherly, C. A.; Na, Y.-C.; Nanayakkara, Y. S.; Woods, R. M.; Sharma, A.; Lacour, J.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. B 2014, 955–956, 72 80
  44. 44
    Armstrong, D. W.; Li, W.; Chang, C. D.; Pitha, J. Anal. Chem. 1990, 62, 914 923
  45. 45
    Jiang, C. X.; Tong, M. Y.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Armstrong, D. W. Electrophoresis 2009, 30, 3897 3909
  46. 46
    Zhang, Y.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Wang, C. L.; Armstrong, D. W. Analyst 2010, 135, 1076 1083
  47. 47
    Perera, S.; Na, Y.-C.; Doundoulakis, T.; Ngo, V. J.; Feng, Q.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Lovely, C. J.; Armstrong, D. W. Chirality 2013, 25, 133 140
  48. 48
    Padivitage, N. L. T.; Dodbiba, E.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Armstrong, D. W. Drug Test. Anal. 2014, 6, 542 551
  49. 49
    Woods, R. M.; Patel, D. C.; Lim, Y.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Gao, H. Y.; Keene, C.; Li, G. Q.; Kurti, L.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1357, 172 181
  50. 50
    Woods, R. M.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Armstrong, D. W. LC–GC N. Am. 2014, 32, 742 751
  51. 51
    Fekete, S.; Kohler, I.; Rudaz, S.; Guillarme, D. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2014, 87, 105 119
  52. 52
    Wang, X.; Carr, P. W.; Stoll, D. R. LC–GC N. Am. 2010, 28, 932 942
  53. 53
    Elgass, H.; Engelhardt, H.; Halász, I. Fresenius’ Z. Anal. Chem. 1979, 294, 97 106
  54. 54
    Guiochon, G.; Sepaniak, M. J. Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 73 73
  55. 55
    Ma, Y.; Chassy, A. W.; Miyazaki, S.; Motokawa, M.; Morisato, K.; Uzu, H.; Ohira, M.; Furuno, M.; Nakanishi, K.; Minakuchi, H.; Mriziq, K.; Farkas, T.; Fiehn, O.; Tanaka, N. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1383, 47 57
  56. 56
    Usher, K. M.; Simmons, C. R.; Dorsey, J. G. J. Chromatogr. A 2008, 1200, 122 128
  57. 57
    de Villiers, A.; Lauer, H.; Szucs, R.; Goodall, S.; Sandra, P. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1113, 84 91
  58. 58
    Fountain, K. J.; Neue, U. D.; Grumbach, E. S.; Diehl, D. M. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 5979 5988
  59. 59
    Gritti, F.; Guiochon, G. Anal. Chem. 2008, 80, 5009 5020
  60. 60
    Gritti, F.; Martin, M.; Guiochon, G. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 3365 3384
  61. 61
    Halász, I.; Endele, R.; Asshauer, J. J. Chromatogr. A 1975, 112, 37 60
  62. 62
    Giddings, J. C. Dynamics of Chromatography: Principles and Theory, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2002.
  63. 63
    Boehm, R. E.; Martire, D. E.; Armstrong, D. W. Anal. Chem. 1988, 60, 522 528
  64. 64
    Gritti, F.; Guiochon, G. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 6350 6365
  65. 65
    Poppe, H.; Kraak, J. C.; Huber, J. F. K.; van den Berg, J. H. M. Chromatographia 1981, 14, 515 523
  66. 66
    Qun-Fang, L.; Rui-Sen, L.; Dan-Yan, N.; Yu-Chun, H. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1997, 42, 971 974

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 145 publications.

  1. Chris Weise, Martin Schirmer, Matthias Polack, Alexander Korell, Hannes Westphal, Julius Schwieger, Rico Warias, Stefan Zimmermann, Detlev Belder. Modular Chip-Based nanoSFC–MS for Ultrafast Separations. Analytical Chemistry 2024, 96 (34) , 13888-13896. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.4c01958
  2. Simon Jonas Jaag, Younes Valadbeigi, Tim Causon, Harald Gross, Michael Lämmerhofer. Three-Minute Enantioselective Amino Acid Analysis by Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Drift Tube Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry Using a Chiral Core–Shell Tandem Column Approach. Analytical Chemistry 2024, 96 (6) , 2666-2675. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c05426
  3. Simona Felletti, Chiara De Luca, Giulia Mazzoccanti, Francesco Gasparrini, Simone Manetto, Flavio Antonio Franchina, Tatiana Chenet, Luisa Pasti, Alberto Cavazzini, Martina Catani. Understanding the Transition from High-Selective to High-Efficient Chiral Separations by Changing the Organic Modifier with Zwitterionic-Teicoplanin Chiral Stationary Phase. Analytical Chemistry 2023, 95 (25) , 9630-9637. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c01344
  4. Ryan Karongo, Jeannie Horak, Michael Lämmerhofer. Comprehensive Online Reversed-Phase × Chiral Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry with Data-Independent Sequential Window Acquisition of All Theoretical Fragment-Ion Spectra-Acquisition for Untargeted Enantioselective Amino Acid Analysis. Analytical Chemistry 2022, 94 (49) , 17063-17072. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.2c03042
  5. Gioacchino Luca Losacco, Heather Wang, Imad A. Haidar Ahmad, Jimmy DaSilva, Alexey A. Makarov, Ian Mangion, Francesco Gasparrini, Michael Lämmerhofer, Daniel W. Armstrong, Erik L. Regalado. Enantioselective UHPLC Screening Combined with In Silico Modeling for Streamlined Development of Ultrafast Enantiopurity Assays. Analytical Chemistry 2022, 94 (3) , 1804-1812. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.1c04585
  6. K. Broeckhoven, G. Desmet. Advances and Innovations in Liquid Chromatography Stationary Phase Supports. Analytical Chemistry 2021, 93 (1) , 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c04466
  7. Alexander S. Kaplitz, Glenn A. Kresge, Benjamin Selover, Leah Horvat, Edward G. Franklin, Justin M. Godinho, Kaitlin M. Grinias, Samuel W. Foster, Joshua J. Davis, James P. Grinias. High-Throughput and Ultrafast Liquid Chromatography. Analytical Chemistry 2020, 92 (1) , 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b04713
  8. Daipayan Roy, M. Farooq Wahab, Terry A. Berger, Daniel W. Armstrong. Ramifications and Insights on the Role of Water in Chiral Sub/Supercritical Fluid Chromatography. Analytical Chemistry 2019, 91 (22) , 14672-14680. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b03908
  9. Piliang Xiang, Yu Yang, Zhitao Zhao, Mingli Chen, Shaorong Liu. Ultrafast Gradient Separation with Narrow Open Tubular Liquid Chromatography. Analytical Chemistry 2019, 91 (16) , 10738-10743. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b02190
  10. Erik L. Regalado, Imad A. Haidar Ahmad, Raffeal Bennett, Valentina D’Atri, Alexey A. Makarov, Guy R. Humphrey, Ian Mangion, Davy Guillarme. The Emergence of Universal Chromatographic Methods in the Research and Development of New Drug Substances. Accounts of Chemical Research 2019, 52 (7) , 1990-2002. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00068
  11. Josef J. Heiland, David Geissler, Sebastian K. Piendl, Rico Warias, Detlev Belder. Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography On-Chip with Two-Photon-Excited-Fluorescence Detection for High-Speed Chiral Separations. Analytical Chemistry 2019, 91 (9) , 6134-6140. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b00726
  12. Valentina D’Atri, Szabolcs Fekete, Adrian Clarke, Jean-Luc Veuthey, Davy Guillarme. Recent Advances in Chromatography for Pharmaceutical Analysis. Analytical Chemistry 2019, 91 (1) , 210-239. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b05026
  13. Omar H. Ismail, Gioacchino L. Losacco, Giulia Mazzoccanti, Alessia Ciogli, Claudio Villani, Martina Catani, Luisa Pasti, Scott Anderson, Alberto Cavazzini, Francesco Gasparrini. Unmatched Kinetic Performance in Enantioselective Supercritical Fluid Chromatography by Combining Latest Generation Whelk-O1 Chiral Stationary Phases with a Low-Dispersion in-House Modified Equipment. Analytical Chemistry 2018, 90 (18) , 10828-10836. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b01907
  14. Darshan C. Patel, M. Farooq Wahab, Thomas C. O’Haver, Daniel W. Armstrong. Separations at the Speed of Sensors. Analytical Chemistry 2018, 90 (5) , 3349-3356. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b04944
  15. Christopher J. Welch . Are We Approaching a Speed Limit for the Chromatographic Separation of Enantiomers?. ACS Central Science 2017, 3 (8) , 823-829. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00250
  16. M. Farooq Wahab, Darshan C. Patel, Rasangi M. Wimalasinghe, and Daniel W. Armstrong . Fundamental and Practical Insights on the Packing of Modern High-Efficiency Analytical and Capillary Columns. Analytical Chemistry 2017, 89 (16) , 8177-8191. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00931
  17. Chandan L. Barhate, Erik L. Regalado, Nathan D. Contrella, Joon Lee, Junyong Jo, Alexey A. Makarov, Daniel W. Armstrong, and Christopher J. Welch . Ultrafast Chiral Chromatography as the Second Dimension in Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography Experiments. Analytical Chemistry 2017, 89 (6) , 3545-3553. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04834
  18. Chandan L. Barhate, M. Farooq Wahab, D. J. Tognarelli, Terry A. Berger, and Daniel W. Armstrong . Instrumental Idiosyncrasies Affecting the Performance of Ultrafast Chiral and Achiral Sub/Supercritical Fluid Chromatography. Analytical Chemistry 2016, 88 (17) , 8664-8672. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01898
  19. M. Farooq Wahab, Rasangi M. Wimalasinghe, Yadi Wang, Chandan L. Barhate, Darshan C. Patel, and Daniel W. Armstrong . Salient Sub-Second Separations. Analytical Chemistry 2016, 88 (17) , 8821-8826. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02260
  20. Carsten Lotter, Josef J. Heiland, Volkmar Stein, Michael Klimkait, Marco Queisser, and Detlev Belder . Evaluation of Pressure Stable Chip-to-Tube Fittings Enabling High-Speed Chip-HPLC with Mass Spectrometric Detection. Analytical Chemistry 2016, 88 (15) , 7481-7486. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01907
  21. Darshan C. Patel , Zachary S. Breitbach , Ross M. Woods , Yeeun Lim , Andy Wang , Frank W. Foss Jr. , and Daniel W. Armstrong . Gram Scale Conversion of R-BINAM to R-NOBIN. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2016, 81 (3) , 1295-1299. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.5b02663
  22. M. Farooq Wahab, Zachary S. Breitbach, Daniel W. Armstrong, Rick Strattan, and Alain Berthod . Problems and Pitfalls in the Analysis of Amygdalin and Its Epimer. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2015, 63 (40) , 8966-8973. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b03120
  23. Troy T. Handlovic, Daniel W. Armstrong. Strategies and considerations to green analytical separations: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 2024, 22 (6) , 2753-2775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-024-01784-6
  24. Yana A. Klimova, Leonid D. Asnin. Comparison of the adsorption dynamics of leucyl-leucine enantiomers and glycyl-glycine on Chirobiotic R and Chirobiotic V columns. Journal of Chromatography Open 2024, 6 , 100152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcoa.2024.100152
  25. Ryan Jacob Burk, M. Farooq Wahab, Daniel W. Armstrong. Influence of theoretical and semi-empirical peak models on the efficiency calculation in chiral chromatography. Talanta 2024, 277 , 126308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2024.126308
  26. Elena N. Reshetova, Anna S. Barashkova, Bulat F. Garifullin. Retention mechanisms of dipeptides on superficially porous particle vancomycin- and teicoplanin-based chiral stationary phases. Journal of Chromatography A 2024, 1730 , 465135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2024.465135
  27. Filippo Malacarne, Sara Grecchi, Malinee Niamlaem, Bartlomiej Bonczak, Gerardo Salinas, Serena Arnaboldi. Unconventional approaches for chiral resolution. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2024, 416 (16) , 3677-3685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-024-05329-2
  28. Saba Aslani, Daniel W. Armstrong. Fast, sensitive LC–MS resolution of $${{\upalpha}}$$-hydroxy acid biomarkers via SPP-teicoplanin and an alternative UV detection approach. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2024, 416 (12) , 3007-3017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-024-05248-2
  29. Dániel Tanács, Róbert Berkecz, Zsolt Bozsó, Gábor K. Tóth, Daniel W. Armstrong, Antal Péter, István Ilisz. Liquid Chromatographic Enantioseparation of Newly Synthesized Fluorinated Tryptophan Analogs Applying Macrocyclic Glycopeptides-Based Chiral Stationary Phases Utilizing Core-Shell Particles. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024, 25 (9) , 4719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25094719
  30. Troy T. Handlovic, M. Farooq Wahab, Bailey C. Glass, Daniel W. Armstrong. Optimization of analytical method greenness scores: a case study of amino acid enantioseparations with carbonated aqueous systems. Green Chemistry 2024, 26 (2) , 760-770. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3GC03005A
  31. Chiara De Luca, Simona Felletti, Flavio Antonio Franchina, Desiree Bozza, Greta Compagnin, Chiara Nosengo, Luisa Pasti, Alberto Cavazzini, Martina Catani. Recent developments in the high-throughput separation of biologically active chiral compounds via high performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 2024, 238 , 115794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2023.115794
  32. Elena Reshetova, Anna S. Barashkova, Bulat F. Garifullin. Retention Mechanisms of Dipeptides on Superficially Porous Particle Vancomycin- and Teicoplanin-Based Chiral Stationary Phases. 2024https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4809328
  33. Ondřej Horáček, Umang Dhaubhadel, Josef Holub, Bohumír Grüner, Daniel W. Armstrong, Radim Kučera. Employment of chiral columns with superficially porous particles in chiral separations of cobalt bis (dicarbollide) and nido ‐7,8‐C 2 B 9 H 12 (1‐) derivatives. Chirality 2023, 35 (12) , 937-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/chir.23606
  34. Luigi Mondello, Paola Dugo, Paola Donato, Miguel Herrero, Lidia Montero, Oliver J. Schmitz. Comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2023, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00269-0
  35. Elena Reshetova, Leonid Asnin. Retention mechanisms of rasagiline and its analogues on superficially porous particle vancomycin- and teicoplanin-based chiral stationary phases. Journal of Chromatography A 2023, 1704 , 464120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2023.464120
  36. Martina Catania, Alberto Cavazzini, Chiara De Luca, Simona Felletti. When van Deemter Goes Upside Down in Chiral Chromatography. LCGC Europe 2023, , 20-23. https://doi.org/10.56530/lcgc.eu.st5666h2
  37. Dániel Tanács, Róbert Berkecz, Daniel W. Armstrong, Antal Péter, István Ilisz. Enantioseparation of a-substituted proline analogs with macrocyclic glycopeptide-based chiral stationary phases immobilized on superficially porous particles of silica applying liquid chromatography with ultraviolet and mass spectrometric detection. Journal of Chromatography A 2023, 1697 , 463997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2023.463997
  38. Saba Aslani, Alain Berthod, Daniel W. Armstrong. Macrocyclic Antibiotics and Cyclofructans. 2023, 247-272. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119802280.ch7
  39. Jauh Tzuoh Lee, Alain Berthod, Daniel W. Armstrong. Comparison of core‐shell versus fully porous particle packings for chiral liquid chromatography productivity. Journal of Separation Science 2023, 46 (8) https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.202200738
  40. P. Peluso, Bezhan Chankvetadze. Fundamentals of enantioselective liquid chromatography. 2023, 383-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99968-7.00024-2
  41. Tivadar Farkas, Bezhan Chankvetadze. Ultrafast high-performance liquid chromatography. 2023, 145-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99968-7.00031-X
  42. S. Britton, K. Lee, L. Azizova, G. Shaw, W. Nishio Ayre, J. P. Mansell. Immobilised teicoplanin does not demonstrate antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus. Scientific Reports 2022, 12 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20310-8
  43. Carla Fernandes, Rita Lima, Madalena M.M. Pinto, Maria Elizabeth Tiritan. Chromatographic supports for enantioselective liquid chromatography: Evolution and innovative trends. Journal of Chromatography A 2022, 1684 , 463555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2022.463555
  44. Dániel Tanács, Róbert Berkecz, Sayeh Shahmohammadi, Enikő Forró, Daniel W. Armstrong, Antal Péter, István Ilisz. Macrocyclic glycopeptides- and derivatized cyclofructan-based chiral stationary phases for the enantioseparation of fluorinated ß-phenylalanine analogs. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 2022, 219 , 114912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2022.114912
  45. Omar H. Ismail, Martina Catani, Giulia Mazzoccanti, Simona Felletti, Simone Manetto, Chiara De Luca, Michael Ye, Alberto Cavazzini, Francesco Gasparrini. Boosting the enantioresolution of zwitterionic-teicoplanin chiral stationary phases by moving to wide-pore core-shell particles. Journal of Chromatography A 2022, 1676 , 463190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2022.463190
  46. Yutaka Konya, Yoshihiro Izumi, Kenji Hamase, Takeshi Bamba. Ultrafast simultaneous chiral analysis of native amino acid enantiomers using supercritical fluid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 2022, 1677 , 463305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2022.463305
  47. Daniel W. Armstrong. Analysis of D-Amino Acids: Relevance in Human Disease. LCGC North America 2022, , 356-360. https://doi.org/10.56530/lcgc.na.mg4374l5
  48. Sepideh Khaki Firooz, Joshua Putman, Brandon Fulton, Carl J. Lovely, Alain Berthod, Daniel W. Armstrong. Liquid chromatography enantiomeric separation of chiral ethanolamine substituted compounds. Chirality 2022, 34 (4) , 620-629. https://doi.org/10.1002/chir.23419
  49. Saba Aslani, M. Farooq Wahab, Marziyeh Eshaghi Kenari, Alain Berthod, Daniel W. Armstrong. An examination of the effects of water on normal phase enantioseparations. Analytica Chimica Acta 2022, 1200 , 339608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2022.339608
  50. Giulia Mazzoccanti, Simone Manetto, Alessia Ciogli, Claudio Villani, Francesco Gasparrini. A perspective on enantioselective chromatography by comparing ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography and normal-phase liquid chromatography through the use of a Pirkle-type stationary phase. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2022, 147 , 116511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2021.116511
  51. Jun‐Hui Zhang, Sheng‐Ming Xie, Li‐Ming Yuan. Recent progress in the development of chiral stationary phases for high‐performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Separation Science 2022, 45 (1) , 51-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.202100593
  52. Eliana A. Agathokleous, Ioannis J. Stavrou, Constantina Kapnissi-Christodoulou. Comparison of cyclofructan-, cyclodextrin-, and polysaccharide-based chiral stationary phases for the separation of pharmaceuticals. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2022, 414 (3) , 1323-1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03754-1
  53. Yu-Sheng Sung, Erik L. Regalado, Daniel W. Armstrong. Fast and Ultrafast Enantioseparations. 2022https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-32-390644-9.00077-9
  54. Rasangi M Wimalasinghe, Daoli Zhao, Lin Wang, Abu Rustum. Development and Validation of a Stability-Indicating Reversed-Phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (RP-HPLC) Method for Identification, Assay, and Estimation of Related Substances of Ivermectin Drug Substance. Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL 2021, 104 (6) , 1505-1513. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoacint/qsab088
  55. Daipayan Roy, Abhijit Tarafder, Larry Miller. Effect of water addition to super/sub-critical fluid mobile-phases for achiral and chiral separations. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2021, 145 , 116464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2021.116464
  56. Basma Saleh, Tongyan Ding, Yuwei Wang, Xiantong Zheng, Rong Liu, Limin He. Analytical Separation of Closantel Enantiomers by HPLC. Molecules 2021, 26 (23) , 7288. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26237288
  57. Ryan Karongo, Min Ge, Jeannie Horak, Harald Gross, Michal Kohout, Wolfgang Lindner, Michael Lämmerhofer. Rapid enantioselective amino acid analysis by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry combining 6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate derivatization with core-shell quinine carbamate anion exchanger separation. Journal of Chromatography Open 2021, 1 , 100004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcoa.2021.100004
  58. Zhongshan Liu, Kaijun Quan, Hui Li, Jia Chen, Ming Guan, Hongdeng Qiu. Preparation of Silica-Based Superficially Porous Silica and its Application in Enantiomer Separations: a Review. Journal of Analysis and Testing 2021, 5 (3) , 242-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41664-021-00155-2
  59. Dániel Tanács, Róbert Berkecz, Aleksandra Misicka, Dagmara Tymecka, Ferenc Fülöp, Daniel W. Armstrong, István Ilisz, Antal Péter. Enantioseparation of ß-amino acids by liquid chromatography using core-shell chiral stationary phases based on teicoplanin and teicoplanin aglycone. Journal of Chromatography A 2021, 1653 , 462383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2021.462383
  60. Sepideh Khaki Firooz, M. Farooq Wahab, Jeongjae Yu, Daniel W. Armstrong. High efficiency functionalized hydrophilic cyclofructans as stationary phases in sub/supercritical fluid chromatography. Talanta 2021, 232 , 122308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2021.122308
  61. Róbert Berkecz, Gábor Németi, Antal Péter, István Ilisz. Liquid Chromatographic Enantioseparations Utilizing Chiral Stationary Phases Based on Crown Ethers and Cyclofructans. Molecules 2021, 26 (15) , 4648. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26154648
  62. Chuping Luo, Joseph J. DeStefano, Timothy J. Langlois, Barry E. Boyes, Stephanie A. Schuster, Justin M. Godinho. Fundamental to achieving fast separations with high efficiency: A review of chromatography with superficially porous particles. Biomedical Chromatography 2021, 35 (7) https://doi.org/10.1002/bmc.5087
  63. Róbert Berkecz, Dániel Tanács, Antal Péter, István Ilisz. Enantioselective Liquid Chromatographic Separations Using Macrocyclic Glycopeptide-Based Chiral Selectors. Molecules 2021, 26 (11) , 3380. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26113380
  64. Gowramma Byran, Senthil Kumar Ramachandran, Kaviarasan Lakshmanan, Kalirajan Rajagopal, Meyyanathan Subramania Nainar. Development and validation of LC/MS method for the determination of meclizine enantiomers in pharmaceutical formulations. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy 2021, 47 (3) , 361-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/03639045.2020.1862174
  65. M. Farooq Wahab, Daipayan Roy, Daniel W. Armstrong. The theory and practice of ultrafast liquid chromatography: A tutorial. Analytica Chimica Acta 2021, 1151 , 238170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2020.12.045
  66. Abhijit Tarafder, Larry Miller. Chiral chromatography method screening strategies: Past, present and future. Journal of Chromatography A 2021, 1638 , 461878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2021.461878
  67. Qian-Hong Wan. Separation Modes. 2021, 71-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5485-5_3
  68. Yana A. Klimova, Leonid D. Asnin. Enantioselective adsorption dynamics of leucyl-leucine in a Chirobiotic R column. Journal of Chromatography A 2021, 1635 , 461771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461771
  69. Simona Felletti, Martina Catani, Giulia Mazzoccanti, Chiara De Luca, Giulio Lievore, Alessandro Buratti, Luisa Pasti, Francesco Gasparrini, Alberto Cavazzini. Mass transfer kinetics on modern Whelk-O1 chiral stationary phases made on fully- and superficially-porous particles. Journal of Chromatography A 2021, 1637 , 461854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461854
  70. Marziyeh E. Kenari, Joshua I. Putman, Ravi P. Singh, Brandon B. Fulton, Huy Phan, Reem K. Haimour, Key Tse, Alain Berthod, Carl J. Lovely, Daniel W. Armstrong. Enantiomeric Separation of New Chiral Azole Compounds. Molecules 2021, 26 (1) , 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26010213
  71. Zhiying Wang, Liangqiao Bian, Chenglin Mo, Hui Shen, Lan Juan Zhao, Kuan-Jui Su, Maciej Kukula, Jauh Tzuoh Lee, Daniel W. Armstrong, Robert Recker, Joan Lappe, Lynda F. Bonewald, Hong-Wen Deng, Marco Brotto. Quantification of aminobutyric acids and their clinical applications as biomarkers for osteoporosis. Communications Biology 2020, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-0766-y
  72. Simona Felletti, Chiara De Luca, Giulio Lievore, Tatiana Chenet, Bezhan Chankvetadze, Tivadar Farkas, Alberto Cavazzini, Martina Catani. Shedding light on mechanisms leading to convex-upward van Deemter curves on a cellulose tris(4-chloro-3-methylphenylcarbamate)-based chiral stationary phase. Journal of Chromatography A 2020, 1630 , 461532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461532
  73. Kohei Yoshikawa, Masahiro Furuno, Nobuo Tanaka, Eiichiro Fukusaki. Fast enantiomeric separation of amino acids using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry on a chiral crown ether stationary phase. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 2020, 130 (4) , 437-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2020.05.007
  74. Glenn A. Kresge, Sylvia Grosse, Alexis Zimmer, Kaitlin M. Grinias, Mauro De Pra, Jenny‐Marie T. Wong, Frank Steiner, James P. Grinias. Strategies in developing high‐throughput liquid chromatography protocols for method qualification of pharmacopeial monographs. Journal of Separation Science 2020, 43 (15) , 2964-2970. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.202000403
  75. Giulia Mazzoccanti, Simone Manetto, Antonio Ricci, Walter Cabri, Andrea Orlandin, Martina Catani, Simona Felletti, Alberto Cavazzini, Micheal Ye, Harald Ritchie, Claudio Villani, Francesco Gasparrini. High–throughput enantioseparation of Nα–fluorenylmethoxycarbonyl proteinogenic amino acids through fast chiral chromatography on zwitterionic-teicoplanin stationary phases. Journal of Chromatography A 2020, 1624 , 461235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461235
  76. Salome Pantsulaia, Khatia Targamadze, Nana Khundadze, Qetevan Kharaishvili, Alessandro Volonterio, Michael Chitty, Tivadar Farkas, Bezhan Chankvetadze. Potential and current limitations of superficially porous silica as a carrier for polysaccharide-based chiral selectors in separation of enantiomers in high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A 2020, 1625 , 461297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461297
  77. Giacomo Carenzi, Silvia Sacchi, Monica Abbondi, Loredano Pollegioni. Direct chromatographic methods for enantioresolution of amino acids: recent developments. Amino Acids 2020, 52 (6-7) , 849-862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-020-02873-w
  78. Petra Vaňkátová, Denisa Folprechtová, Květa Kalíková, Anna Kubíčková, Daniel W. Armstrong, Eva Tesařová. Enantiorecognition ability of different chiral selectors for separation of liquid crystals in supercritical fluid chromatography; critical evaluation. Journal of Chromatography A 2020, 1622 , 461138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461138
  79. Garrett Hellinghausen, M. Farooq Wahab, Daniel W. Armstrong. Improving peak capacities over 100 in less than 60 seconds: operating above normal peak capacity limits with signal processing. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2020, 412 (8) , 1925-1932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-020-02444-8
  80. Matthew J. Sorensen, Brady G. Anderson, Robert T. Kennedy. Liquid chromatography above 20,000 PSI. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2020, 124 , 115810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2020.115810
  81. Denisa Folprechtová, Oleksandr Kozlov, Daniel W. Armstrong, Martin G. Schmid, Květa Kalíková, Eva Tesařová. Enantioselective potential of teicoplanin- and vancomycin-based superficially porous particles-packed columns for supercritical fluid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A 2020, 1612 , 460687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460687
  82. Bezhan Chankvetadze. Recent trends in preparation, investigation and application of polysaccharide-based chiral stationary phases for separation of enantiomers in high-performance liquid chromatography. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2020, 122 , 115709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2019.115709
  83. . Chiral Analytical Scale SFC – Method Development, Stationary Phases, and Mobile Phases. 2019, 117-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119626022.ch5
  84. Daipayan Roy, Daniel W. Armstrong. Fast super/subcritical fluid chromatographic enantioseparations on superficially porous particles bonded with broad selectivity chiral selectors relative to fully porous particles. Journal of Chromatography A 2019, 1605 , 360339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2019.06.060
  85. Christian Geibel, Kristina Dittrich, Ulrich Woiwode, Michal Kohout, Tong Zhang, Wolfgang Lindner, Michael Lämmerhofer. Evaluation of superficially porous particle based zwitterionic chiral ion exchangers against fully porous particle benchmarks for enantioselective ultra-high performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A 2019, 1603 , 130-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2019.06.026
  86. Najma Memon, Tahira Qureshi, Muhammad Iqbal Bhanger, Muhammad Imran Malik. Recent Trends in Fast Liquid Chromatography for Pharmaceutical Analysis. Current Analytical Chemistry 2019, 15 (4) , 349-372. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573411014666180912125155
  87. Leonid D. Asnin, Anastasiia A. Boteva, Olga P. Krasnykh, Maria V. Stepanova, Imran Ali. Unusual van Deemter plots of optical isomers on a chiral brush-type liquid chromatography column. Journal of Chromatography A 2019, 1592 , 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2019.01.048
  88. Shobhit Misra, M. Farooq Wahab, Darshan C. Patel, Daniel W. Armstrong. The utility of statistical moments in chromatography using trapezoidal and Simpson's rules of peak integration. Journal of Separation Science 2019, 42 (8) , 1644-1657. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201801131
  89. Toshihiko Hanai. Fundamental Properties of Packing Materials for Liquid Chromatography. Separations 2019, 6 (1) , 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations6010002
  90. José Luís Dores‐Sousa, Jelle De Vos, Sebastiaan Eeltink. Resolving power in liquid chromatography: A trade‐off between efficiency and analysis time. Journal of Separation Science 2019, 42 (1) , 38-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201800891
  91. Garrett Hellinghausen, Daniel W. Armstrong. Cyclofructans as Chiral Selectors: An Overview. 2019, 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9438-0_11
  92. Glenn A. Kresge, Jenny-Marie T. Wong, Mauro De Pra, Frank Steiner, James P. Grinias. Using Superficially Porous Particles and Ultrahigh Pressure Liquid Chromatography in Pharmacopeial Monograph Modernization of Common Analgesics. Chromatographia 2019, 82 (1) , 465-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-018-3593-2
  93. Simona Felletti, Omar H. Ismail, Chiara De Luca, Valentina Costa, Francesco Gasparrini, Luisa Pasti, Nicola Marchetti, Alberto Cavazzini, Martina Catani. Recent Achievements and Future Challenges in Supercritical Fluid Chromatography for the Enantioselective Separation of Chiral Pharmaceuticals. Chromatographia 2019, 82 (1) , 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-018-3606-1
  94. Anna Lomenova, Katarína Hroboňová. Comparison of HPLC Separation of Phenylalanine Enantiomers on Different Types of Chiral Stationary Phases. Food Analytical Methods 2018, 11 (12) , 3314-3323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-018-1308-9
  95. Simona Felletti, Chiara De Luca, Omar H. Ismail, Luisa Pasti, Valentina Costa, Francesco Gasparrini, Alberto Cavazzini, Martina Catani. On the effect of chiral selector loading and mobile phase composition on adsorption properties of latest generation fully- and superficially-porous Whelk-O1 particles for high-efficient ultrafast enantioseparations. Journal of Chromatography A 2018, 1579 , 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2018.10.022
  96. Garrett Hellinghausen, M. Farooq Wahab, Daniel W. Armstrong. Improving visualization of trace components for quantification using a power law based integration approach. Journal of Chromatography A 2018, 1574 , 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2018.09.002
  97. Yutaka Konya, Moyu Taniguchi, Masahiro Furuno, Yosuke Nakano, Nobuo Tanaka, Eiichiro Fukusaki. Mechanistic study on the high-selectivity enantioseparation of amino acids using a chiral crown ether-bonded stationary phase and acidic, highly organic mobile phase by liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 2018, 1578 , 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2018.10.004
  98. Lia Bezhitashvili, Anna Bardavelidze, Antonina Mskhiladze, Mehmet Gumustas, Sibel A. Ozkan, Alessandro Volonterio, Tivadar Farkas, Bezhan Chankvetadze. Application of cellulose 3,5-dichlorophenylcarbamate covalently immobilized on superficially porous silica for the separation of enantiomers in high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A 2018, 1571 , 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2018.08.011
  99. Nana Khundadze, Salome Pantsulaia, Chiara Fanali, Tivadar Farkas, Bezhan Chankvetadze. On our way to sub-second separations of enantiomers in high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A 2018, 1572 , 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2018.08.027
  100. Hongyue Guo, M. Farooq Wahab, Alain Berthod, Daniel W. Armstrong. Mass spectrometry detection of basic drugs in fast chiral analyses with vancomycin stationary phases. Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis 2018, 8 (5) , 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2018.08.001
Load all citations

Analytical Chemistry

Cite this: Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 18, 9137–9148
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5b00715
Published May 6, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

4451

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Enantiomeric separations of BINAM on CF6-P bonded to SPPs and FPPs at 1.0 mL/min, Tcol = 25 °C. All columns were 5 cm × 0.46 cm in dimensions. (A) Constant MP mode, MP = 92:8 heptane−ethanol. (B) Constant retention mode, MP = (i) 82:18 heptane−ethanol, (ii) 85:15 heptane−ethanol, (iii) 82:18 heptane−ethanol, and (iv) 92:8 heptane−ethanol.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Representative ultrafast enantiomeric separations on each of 6 chiral stationary phases: (A) vancomycin SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = methanol, 4.95 mL/min, Tcol = 60 °C; (B) teicoplanin aglycone SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = methanol, 4.70 mL/min, Tcol = 60 °C; (C) hydroxylpropyl-β-cyclodextrin SPP (5 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 97:3:0.3:0.2 acetonitrile–methanol–TFA–TEA, 4.75 mL/min, Tcol = 60 °C; (D) teicoplanin SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 40:60 water–methanol, 3.00 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C; (E) CF7-DMP SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 90:10 heptane–ethanol, 4.80 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C; (F) CF6-P SPP (10 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 70:30:0.3:0.2 acetonitrile–methanol–TFA–TEA, 4.50 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Effect of detector sampling rate and response time on efficiency (N) and resolution (Rs) in ultrafast chromatographic separations. BINAM analyzed on CF7-DMP SPP (3 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 90:10 heptane–ethanol, 4.0 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C; 1 Hz = 1 s–1.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Optimization of Agilent 1290 UHPLC for ultrafast separations by replacing stock parts with low extra column volume alternatives. Tröger’s base analyzed on CF7-DMP SPP (5 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 70:30 heptane–ethanol, 2.5 mL/min, Tcol = 22 °C. Percent extra column contribution is expressed as σratio2 = σsystem2column+system2 (see the Supporting Information for moment analysis). (A) Stock condition: stock injection needle and needle seat, 170 μm i.d. connection tubing (22 cm total) with IDEX 10-32 finger tight fittings, and a 1.0 μL detector flow cell. (B) Optimized conditions: ultralow dispersion needle and needle seat, 75 μm i.d. nanoViper connection tubing (22 cm total), 0.6 μL detector flow cell.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. van Deemter plots for chiral and achiral analytes in polar organic mode, normal phase, and reversed phase on 2.7 μm SPP CSPs. (A) CF6-P SPP (10 cm × 0.46 cm i.d.), MP = 80:20:0.3:0.2 acetonitrile–methanol–TFA–TEA, Tcol = 25 °C (thermostated). (B) CF7-DMP SPP (10 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 90:10 heptane–ethanol, Tcol = 25 °C (thermostated). (C) Teicoplanin bonded SPP (5 cm × 0.46 cm), MP = 90:10 water–methanol, Tcol = 25 °C (thermostated). (D) Tcol = 22 °C (not thermostated), other conditions were identical to part C. See the Supporting Information for temperature effects on selectivities. The k values reported are for a flow rate of 1 mL/min.

  • References


    This article references 66 other publications.

    1. 1
      Davankov, V. A.; Rogozhin, S. V. J. Chromatogr. A 1971, 60, 280 283
    2. 2
      Mikes, F. E.; Boshart, G. J. Chromatogr. A 1978, 149, 455 464
    3. 3
      Pirkle, W. H.; Finn, J. M. J. Org. Chem. 1981, 46, 2935 2938
    4. 4
      Okamoto, Y.; Honda, S.; Okamoto, I.; Yuki, H.; Murata, S.; Noyori, R.; Takaya, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981, 103, 6971 6973
    5. 5
      Allenmark, S.; Bomgren, B.; Borén, H. J. Chromatogr. A 1983, 264, 63 68
    6. 6
      Armstrong, D. W.; Ward, T. J.; Armstrong, R. D.; Beesley, T. E. Science 1986, 232, 1132 1135
    7. 7
      Okamoto, Y.; Kawashima, M.; Yamamoto, K.; Hatada, K. Chem. Lett. 1984, 739 742
    8. 8
      Armstrong, D. W.; DeMond, W. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 1984, 22, 411 415
    9. 9
      Okamoto, Y.; Aburatani, R.; Fukumoto, T.; Hatada, K. Chem. Lett. 1987, 1857 1860
    10. 10
      Stalcup, A. M.; Chang, S. C.; Armstrong, D. W.; Pitha, J. J. Chromatogr. A 1990, 513, 181 194
    11. 11
      Armstrong, D. W.; Stalcup, A. M.; Hilton, M. L.; Duncan, J. D.; Faulkner, J. R., Jr.; Chang, S. C. Anal. Chem. 1990, 62, 1610 1615
    12. 12
      Pirkle, W. H.; Welch, C. J.; Lamm, B. J. Org. Chem. 1992, 57, 3854 3860
    13. 13
      Armstrong, D. W.; Tang, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhou, Y.; Bagwill, C.; Chen, J.-R. Anal. Chem. 1994, 66, 1473 1484
    14. 14
      Laemmerhofer, M.; Lindner, W. J. Chromatogr. A 1996, 741, 33 48
    15. 15
      Maier, N. M.; Nicoletti, L.; Lammerhofer, M.; Lindner, W. Chirality 1999, 11, 522 528
    16. 16
      Berthod, A.; Chen, X. H.; Kullman, J. P.; Armstrong, D. W.; Gasparrini, F.; D’Acquarica, I.; Villani, C.; Carotti, A. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 1767 1780
    17. 17
      Gasparrini, F.; Misiti, D.; Rompietti, R.; Villani, C. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1064, 25 38
    18. 18
      Sun, P.; Wang, C. L.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Zhang, Y.; Armstrong, D. W. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 10215 10226
    19. 19
      Sun, P.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 4904 4918
    20. 20
      Han, X.; He, L.; Zhong, Q.; Beesley, T. E.; Armstrong, D. W. Chromatographia 2006, 63, 13 23
    21. 21
      Péter, A.; Török, G.; Armstrong, D. W.; Tóth, G.; Tourwé, D. J. Chromatogr. A 1998, 828, 177 190
    22. 22
      Davankov, V. A. Chirality 1997, 9, 99 102
    23. 23
      Gasparrini, F.; Misiti, D.; Villani, C. Chirality 1992, 4, 447 458
    24. 24
      Oberleitner, W. R.; Maier, N. M.; Lindner, W. J. Chromatogr. A 2002, 960, 97 108
    25. 25
      Sajonz, P.; Schafer, W.; Gong, X.; Shultz, S.; Rosner, T.; Welch, C. J. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1145, 149 154
    26. 26
      Hamman, C.; Wong, M.; Aliagas, I.; Ortwine, D. F.; Pease, J.; Schmidt, D. E., Jr.; Victorino, J. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1305, 310 319
    27. 27
      Ai, F.; Li, L.; Ng, S.-C.; Tan, T. T. Y. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 7502 7506
    28. 28
      Cancelliere, G.; Ciogli, A.; D’Acquarica, I.; Gasparrini, F.; Kocergin, J.; Misiti, D.; Pierini, M.; Ritchie, H.; Simone, P.; Villani, C. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 990 999
    29. 29
      Kotoni, D.; Ciogli, A.; Molinaro, C.; D’Acquarica, I.; Kocergin, J.; Szczerba, T.; Ritchie, H.; Villani, C.; Gasparrini, F. Anal. Chem. 2012, 84, 6805 6813
    30. 30
      Cavazzini, A.; Marchetti, N.; Guzzinati, R.; Pierini, M.; Ciogli, A.; Kotoni, D.; D’Acquarica, I.; Villani, C.; Gasparrini, F. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2014, 63, 95 103
    31. 31
      Gritti, F.; Guiochon, G. LC–GC N. Am. 2012, 586 597
    32. 32
      Omamogho, J. O.; Nesterenko, E.; Connolly, D.; Glennon, J. LC–GC N. Am. 2012, 63 69
    33. 33
      DeStefano, J. J.; Langlois, T. J.; Kirkland, J. J. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2008, 46, 254 260
    34. 34
      Gritti, F. LC–GC N. Am. 2014, 928 940
    35. 35
      Broeckhoven, K.; Cabooter, D.; Desmet, G. J. Pharm. Anal 2013, 3, 313 323
    36. 36
      Bruns, S.; Stoeckel, D.; Smarsly, B. M.; Tallarek, U. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1268, 53 63
    37. 37
      Gritti, F.; Farkas, T.; Heng, J.; Guiochon, G. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218, 8209 8221
    38. 38
      Dolzan, M. D.; Spudeit, D. A.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Barber, W. E.; Micke, G. A.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1365, 124 130
    39. 39
      Spudeit, D. A.; Dolzan, M. D.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Barber, W. E.; Micke, G. A.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1363, 89 95
    40. 40
      Fanali, S.; D’Orazio, G.; Farkas, T.; Chankvetadze, B. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1269, 136 142
    41. 41
      Lomsadze, K.; Jibuti, G.; Farkas, T.; Chankvetadze, B. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1234, 50 55
    42. 42
      Gritti, F.; Guiochon, G. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1348, 87 96
    43. 43
      Weatherly, C. A.; Na, Y.-C.; Nanayakkara, Y. S.; Woods, R. M.; Sharma, A.; Lacour, J.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. B 2014, 955–956, 72 80
    44. 44
      Armstrong, D. W.; Li, W.; Chang, C. D.; Pitha, J. Anal. Chem. 1990, 62, 914 923
    45. 45
      Jiang, C. X.; Tong, M. Y.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Armstrong, D. W. Electrophoresis 2009, 30, 3897 3909
    46. 46
      Zhang, Y.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Wang, C. L.; Armstrong, D. W. Analyst 2010, 135, 1076 1083
    47. 47
      Perera, S.; Na, Y.-C.; Doundoulakis, T.; Ngo, V. J.; Feng, Q.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Lovely, C. J.; Armstrong, D. W. Chirality 2013, 25, 133 140
    48. 48
      Padivitage, N. L. T.; Dodbiba, E.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Armstrong, D. W. Drug Test. Anal. 2014, 6, 542 551
    49. 49
      Woods, R. M.; Patel, D. C.; Lim, Y.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Gao, H. Y.; Keene, C.; Li, G. Q.; Kurti, L.; Armstrong, D. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1357, 172 181
    50. 50
      Woods, R. M.; Breitbach, Z. S.; Armstrong, D. W. LC–GC N. Am. 2014, 32, 742 751
    51. 51
      Fekete, S.; Kohler, I.; Rudaz, S.; Guillarme, D. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2014, 87, 105 119
    52. 52
      Wang, X.; Carr, P. W.; Stoll, D. R. LC–GC N. Am. 2010, 28, 932 942
    53. 53
      Elgass, H.; Engelhardt, H.; Halász, I. Fresenius’ Z. Anal. Chem. 1979, 294, 97 106
    54. 54
      Guiochon, G.; Sepaniak, M. J. Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 73 73
    55. 55
      Ma, Y.; Chassy, A. W.; Miyazaki, S.; Motokawa, M.; Morisato, K.; Uzu, H.; Ohira, M.; Furuno, M.; Nakanishi, K.; Minakuchi, H.; Mriziq, K.; Farkas, T.; Fiehn, O.; Tanaka, N. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1383, 47 57
    56. 56
      Usher, K. M.; Simmons, C. R.; Dorsey, J. G. J. Chromatogr. A 2008, 1200, 122 128
    57. 57
      de Villiers, A.; Lauer, H.; Szucs, R.; Goodall, S.; Sandra, P. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1113, 84 91
    58. 58
      Fountain, K. J.; Neue, U. D.; Grumbach, E. S.; Diehl, D. M. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 5979 5988
    59. 59
      Gritti, F.; Guiochon, G. Anal. Chem. 2008, 80, 5009 5020
    60. 60
      Gritti, F.; Martin, M.; Guiochon, G. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 3365 3384
    61. 61
      Halász, I.; Endele, R.; Asshauer, J. J. Chromatogr. A 1975, 112, 37 60
    62. 62
      Giddings, J. C. Dynamics of Chromatography: Principles and Theory, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2002.
    63. 63
      Boehm, R. E.; Martire, D. E.; Armstrong, D. W. Anal. Chem. 1988, 60, 522 528
    64. 64
      Gritti, F.; Guiochon, G. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 6350 6365
    65. 65
      Poppe, H.; Kraak, J. C.; Huber, J. F. K.; van den Berg, J. H. M. Chromatographia 1981, 14, 515 523
    66. 66
      Qun-Fang, L.; Rui-Sen, L.; Dan-Yan, N.; Yu-Chun, H. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1997, 42, 971 974
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    Peak parameter calculations, surface coverage of chiral selectors on silica, column permeability calculations, determination of extra-column contributions, and frictional heating measurements data. The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b00715.


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.