Page 1 of 1

Why isn't the "discrimination factor" used more of

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:08 pm
by Rob Burgess
... as a means of evaluating the separation between adjacent peak pairs (especially where there is a vast difference in respective peak area / and or areas). It appears to be a simple and more elegant "chromatographic property" to calculate. Is it a historical thing I wonder?

Also would such a descriptor stand up to regulatory scrutiny and method listing? Finally are common chromatorgaphy data systems, such as Empower and Atlas capable of calculating a discrimination factor easily?

http://www.sepsci.com/chromforum/viewto ... ion+factor

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:23 pm
by tom jupille
Rob, I suspect that "a historical thing" is a big part of the answer.

I would argue that Rs is more "elegant" than discrimination factor in that it can more easily be related back to other parameters like k', α, and N (and perhaps the fact that it is harder to hand-calculate imbues Rs with a certain "mystique" that makes it more attractive :wink: ). The "ease of calculation" advantage of discrimination factor is offset to some extent by the fact that we rely on the data system to do that sort of thing, and I don't think it's a particularly easy calculation to do on the data system.

The "regulatory scrutiny" issue is a big one. Discrimination factor is documented in the literature (e.g., Uwe's book) so it could be used, but the fact that the FDA/ICH/USP define resolution and "suggest" its use as part of system suitability certainly makes it a safer choice (it's what auditors expect to see).

I don't know about the data systems. Off the top of my head, I doubt that discrimination factor is programmed in, but it should be possible to write a macro (or Excel spreadsheet for that matter) to calculate it. As I said earlier, though, while it's a nice, easy, intuitively appealing calculation to do by hand from a chromatogram, I don't think it's especially easy to do on the computer.