Different between Hayesep and Porapak Packed Column

[kan]

I have search the net for the whole day but I'm still can't see much different between this two type of columns. Both of it are packed with porous polymer.

Hayesep is used in low molecular weight materials containing halogens, sulphurs, water, alcohols, glycols, free fatty acids, esters, ketones, and aldehydes. It also can separate NO, N2O or NO2 from other compound such as CO2 etc

Porapak is mainly for hydrocarbon separation but also is able to separate NO, N2O, NO2 from other compound such as CO2 etc

Tx

[chromatographer1]

Dr Hollis and Mr. Hayes from Dow Chemical developed the Porapak packings when at Dow Chemical. They took the discoveries from chemists at Rohm and Haas and used these polymerized porous beads to make a selection of polymers which gave different selectivities to different small molecules (gas and liquid) in separations in the gas phase.

The rights and patents for these were sold to Waters Corp and they have continued to manufacture these porous polymer beaks according to the original receipes

Mr. Hayes after retirement in response to his old friends in the petrochemical industry began to make special formulations for special purposes. Thus began Hayes Separations. His porous polymer beads use slightly different receipes.

Celite also manufactured porous polymer beads which are called the Century Series.

You will find that Chromosorb 101 and 103 are different from the other porous polymers available.

Chromosorb 102 is quite similar to Hayesep Q (D) and Porapak Q.

Porapaks tend to have less backpressure than Hayeseps for the same length of column and faster elution of the same analytes, but there are selectivity advantages sometimes with Hayesep materials.

It is like buying a Honda, a Toyota, a Ford, or a Chevy. All will get the job done but some prefer one over the other for select reasons.

The Century Series polymers are also quality products and should be considered in applications.

All three products are well made and are similar in performance. They differ in their pore sizes, pore distributions, and the chemistry of their monomers of synthesis.

Most of the literature comparisons were done in the 1970s but you still may be able to find them in libraries.

best wishes,

Rod

[kan]

Thanks for the speedy reply.