Dataset Information

Easy and accurate calculation of programmed temperature gas chromatographic retention times by back-calculation of temperature and hold-up time profiles.

ABSTRACT: Linear retention indices are commonly used to identify compounds in programmed-temperature gas chromatography (GC), but they are unreliable unless the original experimental conditions used to measure them are stringently reproduced. However, differences in many experimental conditions may be properly taken into account by calculating programmed-temperature retention times of compounds from their measured isothermal retention vs. temperature relationships. We call this approach "retention projection". Until now, retention projection has been impractical because it required very precise, meticulous measurement of the temperature vs. time and hold-up time vs. temperature profiles actually produced by a specific GC instrument to be accurate. Here we present a new, easy-to-use methodology to precisely measure those profiles: we spike a sample with 25 n-alkanes and use their measured, programmed-temperature retention times to precisely back-calculate what the instrument profiles must have been. Then, when we use those back-calculated profiles to project retention times of 63 chemically diverse compounds, we found that the projections are extremely accurate (e.g. to ±0.9 s in a 40 min ramp). They remained accurate with different temperature programs, GC instruments, inlet pressures, flow rates, and with columns taken from different batches of stationary phase while the accuracy of retention indices became worse the more the experimental conditions were changed from the original ones used to measure them. We also developed new, open-source software (http://www.retentionprediction.org/gc) to demonstrate the system.

SUBMITTER: Boswell PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3478941 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Easy and accurate calculation of programmed temperature gas chromatographic retention times by back-calculation of temperature and hold-up time profiles.

Boswell Paul G PG Carr Peter W PW Cohen Jerry D JD Hegeman Adrian D AD

Journal of chromatography. A 20120923

Linear retention indices are commonly used to identify compounds in programmed-temperature gas chromatography (GC), but they are unreliable unless the original experimental conditions used to measure them are stringently reproduced. However, differences in many experimental conditions may be properly taken into account by calculating programmed-temperature retention times of compounds from their measured isothermal retention vs. temperature relationships. We call this approach "retention project ...[more]

PMID: 23040964

Similar Datasets

Project description:Gradient retention times are difficult to project from the underlying retention factor (k) vs. solvent composition (?) relationships. A major reason for this difficulty is that gradients produced by HPLC pumps are imperfect - gradient delay, gradient dispersion, and solvent mis-proportioning are all difficult to account for in calculations. However, we recently showed that a gradient "back-calculation" methodology can measure these imperfections and take them into account. In RPLC, when the back-calculation methodology was used, error in projected gradient retention times is as low as could be expected based on repeatability in the k vs. ? relationships. HILIC, however, presents a new challenge: the selectivity of HILIC columns drift strongly over time. Retention is repeatable in short time, but selectivity frequently drifts over the course of weeks. In this study, we set out to understand if the issue of selectivity drift can be avoid by doing our experiments quickly, and if there any other factors that make it difficult to predict gradient retention times from isocratic k vs. ? relationships when gradient imperfections are taken into account with the back-calculation methodology. While in past reports, the accuracy of retention projections was >5%, the back-calculation methodology brought our error down to ?1%. This result was 6-43 times more accurate than projections made using ideal gradients and 3-5 times more accurate than the same retention projections made using offset gradients (i.e., gradients that only took gradient delay into account). Still, the error remained higher in our HILIC projections than in RPLC. Based on the shape of the back-calculated gradients, we suspect the higher error is a result of prominent gradient distortion caused by strong, preferential water uptake from the mobile phase into the stationary phase during the gradient - a factor our model did not properly take into account. It appears that, at least with the stationary phase we used, column distortion is an important factor to take into account in retention projection in HILIC that is not usually important in RPLC.

Dataset Information

Easy and accurate calculation of programmed temperature gas chromatographic retention times by back-calculation of temperature and hold-up time profiles.

Publications

Easy and accurate calculation of programmed temperature gas chromatographic retention times by back-calculation of temperature and hold-up time profiles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets