Volume based vs. time based chromatograms: Reproducibility of data for gradient separations under high and low pressure conditions

• Due to heat effects, time-based chromatograms may not yield highly reproducible separations.
• Plotting chromatograms as functions of the volume eluted may provide better reproducibility.
• Different methods of recording gradient elution chromatograms are compared.
• The reproducibilities of analytical data are assessed and compared.

A critical aspect in fast gradient separations carried out under constant pressure, in the very high pressure liquid chromatography (VHPLC) mode is that time-based chromatograms may not yield highly reproducible separations. A proposed solution to improve the reproducibility of these separations involves plotting the chromatograms as functions of the volume eluted vs. UV absorbance instead of time vs. UV. To study the consequences of using the volume-based rather than the time-based chromatograms, separations were first performed under low pressures that do not generate significant amounts of heat and for which the variations of the eluent density along the columns are negligible. Secondly, they were performed under very high pressures that do generate heat and measurable variations of the local retention factor and eluent density along the column. Comparison of the results provides estimates of the improvements obtained when volume based chromatograms are used in gradient analyses. Using a column packed with fully porous particles, four different types of methods and several sets for each method were used to perform the gradient elution runs: two sets of constant flow rate operations, four sets of constant pressure operations, two sets of constant pressure operations with programmed flow rate, and one set using the constant heat loss approach. The differences between time-based and volume-based chromatograms are demonstrated by using eight replicates of early, middle, and last eluting peaks. The results show that volume-based chromatograms improve the retention time reproducibility of the four constant pressure methods by a factor of 3.7 on average. If the column is not thermally conditioned prior to performing a long series of separations, flow controlled methods (constant flow rate, programmed constant pressure, and constant wall heat approaches) are more precise. If one gradient run is used to bring the column to a relatively stable temperature, constant pressure separations have a factor of 3 times better reproducibility of retention times with respect to constant flow rate gradient separations.