Influence of micelles on partitioning equilibria of ionizable species in liquid chromatography:  pH and ionic strength effects

Arunyanart, Manop.; Love, L. J. Cline.

doi:10.1021/ac00291a020

Cited by 50 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Armstrong initially [1], and Cline-Love [5] established the thermodynamics of the retention; they verified the validity of their theory for a cationic or anionic surfactant. The Armstrong equation for a binding solute indicates a linear relationship be- tween the inverse of the capacity factor and the micelle concentration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Micellar liquid chromatography of polyaromatic hydrocarbons using anionic, cationic, and nonionic surfactants: Armstrong model, LSER interpretation

Mutelet¹,

Rogalski²,

Guermouche

2003

Chromatographia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KeyWords Column liquid chromatography Micellar Liquid Chromatography Armstrong Model LinearSolvatTon Energy RelatTonshTp Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons SummaryThe capacity factors kof 28 polyaromatTc hydrocarbons (PAHs) were determTned by micellarlTquTd chromatography (CLM) Tn several mobiles phases containing anTonic (SDS), catTonic (CRAB), or non-Tonic (BrTj 35) surfactants. The mTcelle-water bTndTng constants KMwwere calculated via the Armstrong theory Linear solvation energy relationship (LSER) were used to corre late k and K,~wwith the PAHs solvatochromic descriptors. LSER correlation was convenient for k. were The most important factors appeared to be the size and basidty of the PAHs. In the reten tion of the PAHs, their volume interacted positively and their basidty negatively. LSER correla tion of KMwwas relatively poordue to the difficult and complex transfer PAHs from water to the micelles. The volume and basicity strongly influenced the KMw, depending on the surfactant.With SDS or Bri i 35, the ?AH sTze increased KMwwhereas its basTcTty decreased KMw The opposTte was observed wth CRAB.However, MLC is less efficient than conventional RPLC [11, 12].The addition of a small amount of organic modifier or an increase in the column temperature produced efficiencies similar to those obtained in RP-HPLC [13].MLC was used to separate plyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) of environmental interest [14 16]. In these papers, the influence of different parameters, such as the amount of the modifier and the column temperature, was investigated.In this work, three kinds of surfactants (anionic, cationic and non-ionic) are used to determine the solute-micelle binding constants of PAHs in MLC via the Armstrong retention model. The linear solvation energy relationships (LSER) model is also applied to characterise solute-micelle interactions with the three micelle types.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Most of the micellar mobile phases include anionic surfactant (sodium dodecyl sulfate), cationic surfactant (hexadecyltrimetyl or dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide) or nonionic surfactant (Brij 35). The Armstrong retention model [1] as extended by ClineLove [5] has allowed the determination of the solute-micelle binding constants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micellar liquid chromatography of polyaromatic hydrocarbons using anionic, cationic, and nonionic surfactants: Armstrong model, LSER interpretation

Mutelet¹,

Rogalski²,

Guermouche

2003

Chromatographia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As cmc value, 0.00815 M was used, corresponding to micellar solutions of SDS without modifier. For the 7 solutes considered, the dependence ofk against pH was sigrnoidal, with increased retention at lower pH due to the stronger interaction of the acidic solute with the anionic surface of the surfactant-modified stationary phase [ 16,19]. The protonation constants in water are [20,21] [16].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A three-factor optimisation strategy for micellar liquid chromatography

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KeyWordsColumn liquid chromatography Micellar liquid chromatography Retention modelling Experimental design Optimisation the difficulty of the separation problem, which saves further experimental work if any of the developed partial optimisations succeeds before developing the threefactor design. In a favourable case, four experiments can be enough. SummaryAn interpretive optimisation methodology for micellar liquid chromatography (MLC) is shown, taking into account pH, surfactant (sodium dodecyl sulphate) and organic modifier (propanol) concentrations. Two objectives are considered: to develop a highly practical straightforward three-factor optimisation for practical MLC, and, in order to avoid unecessary experiments, to link two and three-factor optimisations through a stepwise construction of the experimental design at different pH levels. The whole pH range for an ODS colurnn (from 3 to 7) is covered. The proposed strategy was thoroughly evaluated using the chromatographic data from 81 experimental mobile phases, applied to the separation of a set of solutes exhibiting diverse acidbase behaviour where some of them had partial protonation which is difficult to model. When all the available information was used for modelling the system, the global mean error in the prediction of the retention was 2.5%. When less information was used to achieve a practical number of experiments, the errors increased and depended on the experimental design. A basic design consisting of a 3 x2 z (pH, surfactant, modifier) regular distribution of experiments gave good descriptions, except for those solutes with a partial protonation in the studied pH range. The mean error obtained using a 3 x 22+ 3 learning set (15 experiments) and a test set of 66 experiments was 4 %. A final strategy is proposed which has the advantage of allowing partial optimisations in two factors at constant pH levels, before completing the three-factor experimental design. The sequential strategy adapts retention model and design to

show abstract

“…A model considering the thermodynamics of partition equilibria occurring in MLC was proposed by Armstrong and Nome [11] and Arunyanat and Cline-Love [12]. A solute injected in the HPLC column is partitioned between the aqueous phase, the stationary phase and the micellar pseudo-phase.…”

Section: Validation Of the Mlc Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New method to determine LSER parameters

Mutelet¹,

Guermouche

Rogalski³

2003

Chromatographia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KeyWordsColumn liquid chromatography Micellar liquid chromatography Linear solvation energy relationship Polyaromatic hydrocarbons SummaryNew method was developed to determining ~f l~ and ~r~ descriptors ofthe linear salvation energy relationship (LSER) with micelle water partition coeffident obtained using micellar li quid chromatography (MLC). This method was tested wth chromatographic data of 20 or ganic compounds. Good results obtained confirm the validity of the method that opens new possibilities of predse and reliable determination of LSER descriptors of high boiling corn pounds. This method was used to establish ~/3~ and rr~ descriptors of 23 polyaromatic hy drocarbons that were not avaTlable Tn the literature.

show abstract

Influence of micelles on partitioning equilibria of ionizable species in liquid chromatography: pH and ionic strength effects

Cited by 50 publications

References 22 publications

Micellar liquid chromatography of polyaromatic hydrocarbons using anionic, cationic, and nonionic surfactants: Armstrong model, LSER interpretation

Micellar liquid chromatography of polyaromatic hydrocarbons using anionic, cationic, and nonionic surfactants: Armstrong model, LSER interpretation

A three-factor optimisation strategy for micellar liquid chromatography

New method to determine LSER parameters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About