Chromatography Forum

Porous , Non Porous , Monolith and now porous shell / fused core / core shell ........where is the HPLC column innovation leading to ....What say ?


From lower particle size (porous 10um-5um-4um-3.5um-3um-2um-sub 2um ) the bottleneck issue of increased back pressure cropped and so gave way to the UPLC/UHPLC systems , But the newer columns (2.7 um -2.6um -1.7um )which are neither fully porous nor fully non- porous seems to be the latest talk .....will it lead to a real revolution owing to its better mass appeal ( no special HPLC required ) ?

These kinds of questions have led your colleagues around the world to engage in the internet equivalent of a fist-fight many times.

I don't wish to start another one, so I will try to be as unbiased as possible.

All of the things that you mentioned have their benefits and liabilities. All will probably be around for the next 5 years or so. Whether you choose one over the other will depend on your needs and priorities. For example,

Are you interested in maximum speed at any cost?
Are you limited in maximum pressure?
Do you need maximum resolution?
Can you/are you willing to buy new equipment?

Depending on how you answer these questions (and many others that can be imagined), your best choice could be any of the options out there (sub-2 um, fused core, traditional 3 and 5 um).

The most efficient and fastest columns will work for all applications, but not everyone needs that level of performance. You should start by prioritizing your needs, and then find a system that meets those needs and leaves you some room to improve/optimize.

Having said that, I think the majority of labs could make significant improvements in speed and efficiency by improving their equipment and/or columns, even without going to the high end systems. But change is hard!

exactly..... column technology advances are revolving around application needs - - whether it is efficiency, speed or peak capacity requirements. But do you think it's an innovation??? or mere modifications??

One old example:
viewtopic.php?t=10656&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

One old example:
viewtopic.php?t=10656&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Thanks for pointing out .....In fact I definitely missed on this very interesting discussion earlier !!

Since the markets here in India are opening up now with Supelco -Ascentis Express ; ; Halo .Saw the latest launch of Phenomenex -Kinetex and ....I thought it would be pertinient to bring out this topic

Though here , we see many eager scientists who would like to look at saving solvents (ACN crisis ) and reducing run time (higher throughput ).

Well , what can one say ! It looks like already much has been discussed on the subject !

I have a feeling that the UPLC approach is not so hot anymore. We only use our Acquity systems when we need maximum resolution (e.g. for LC/MS use).

Selectivity is key, and you have more ways to control selectivity now than you did 10 years ago. I cannot see any need to go below 3.5 µm for 99% of all applications.

There are still issues with both the Acquity and the 1200 systems that make them unsuitable for routine use. The Acquity cannot mix formic/acetic acid and acetonitrile without terrible noise. The 1200 detector have worse performance than the older 1100 detectors. The column oven on Acquity cannot house longer columns than 150 mm. But the worst part is that neither of the systems can be controlled by our common software - Chromeleon.

And to add:


i) the selectivity of column
ii)usable pH range (the wider - the most prefered)