TNA:
The next sentence in that article referred to an article (B.A. Bidlingmeyer, J. Chromatogr. Sci. 38, 226 (2000).) wherein the author suggested the following for cleaning columns used with ion-pairing agents:
"Bidlingmeyer9 disagrees with this generality [columns become contaminated and cannot be regenerated to their original state, and the story goes that any column used for ion-pairing work should be dedicated to that technique and never used again for regular reversed-phase chromatography] and feels that the aggressive pH values used for the ion-pairing coupling can actually change the nature of some columns by either hydrolysis of the bonded phase or endcapping silane under acidic conditions (pH 1–3) or by silica dissolution at higher pH values (pH 7–8). To remove sulphonic acid ion-pairing reagents, he recommends first washing the column (minimum of 20 column volumes) with the same mobile phase without the ion-pairing reagent and then washing with mobile phase without the buffer (methanol might be a better organic solvent than acetonitrile in this wash step; for very long–chain ion-pairing reagents, use tetrahydrofuran). Apparently, sulphonic acid ion-pairing reagents and amine ion-pairing reagents exhibit different behaviours. Bidlingmeyer and co-workers10 demonstrated that when using a C18 column with mobile-phase concentrations greater than 70% methanol, SDS, which is a long-chain anion-pairing agent, is not
adsorbed onto the stationary phase. This finding agrees with the Separations Group work.7"
From the above quote, I assume that if the use of ion-pairing agents has altered the stationary phase somewhat, your selectivity may be different than a new column of the same type that hasn't been used for ion-pairing with 'aggressive pH values' (I believe this is similar what Uwe Neue is referring to as 'column conditioning' in his HPLC Troubleshooting Guide -
http://www.waters.com/webassets/cms/lib ... a20769.pdf).