Chromatography Forum

I'd like to ask a generalized question, which also deals with a new regulated product my company will be making at a conract manufacturing location. The active can be assayed by either capillary GC or reverse-phase HPLC with UV detection (the same exact sampler vials can be taken to either such unit). Would one naturally lean towards HPLC because U.S. regulatory agency auditors think they "know" HPLC? Right now I'm planning to perform the validation studies both ways, because so very little extra work may be required, just to "have on the books". The contract manufacturing location has a GC (but its used full time and another would be needed) and no one there has HPLC experience. There don't appear to be any matrix interferences either way. Thoughts, please.

Flip a coin.

To give a more serious answer, I would agree with the "do it both ways" approach. My guess is that you will be better off having your contractor do the analysis by GC, avoiding the "learning curve" associated with moving to LC. If you ever change sources, the new lab (per your comments about regulatory comfort!) are more likely to be familiar with LC.

What's cheaper/faster? Buying them a GC and sending them a method & some intermediate precision samples to run or sending someone (you?) there to train them on HPLC, then going back after they mess up the intermediate precision samples?

I'd guess sending them a method, GC & samples.

I agree with DR, that GC analyses are less expensive. And when there are trained analysts who can perform GC analyses, then I think that it's better for you to choose GC, for your issue.
Using an appropriate detector in GC you can achieve better sensitivity than HPLC-UV, better resolution also when using GC columns instead of HPLC columns (there are exceptions, of course).