Bisphenol A Alternatives – Are they really safer?

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a widely used epoxy resin that has come under scrutiny in recent years. It is so ubiquitous that it was detected in 93% of surveyed test subjects over the age of 6. You probably handle BPA-containing products already on a regular basis, such as receipts from the grocery store, plastic bottles, and many other sources. In today’s world, exposure to BPA is virtually unavoidable.
                As a compound that mimics the action of estradiol, BPA is an endocrine disruptor. In addition, a wide variety of studies have reported a number of other possible health effects. Some companies that have used BPA in their consumer materials have since replaced it with other bisphenol compounds and labeled the new materials as “BPA-free.”  This may lead consumers to believe that these products  are now safe, but the fact of the matter is that some of these BPA-substitutes are just as toxic, if not more so.
                Two examples of these BPA alternatives are bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol S (BPS). They are structurally similar to BPA and hence exhibit similar physical properties, making them ostensibly good BPA substitutes. In terms of health effects however, some reports claim they are actually 100 times worse than BPA [1].
                Similarity in structure also means that the compounds may be difficult to distinguish chromatographically. Nevertheless, it will be important to have HPLC methods capable of separating these three bisphenol compounds from each other for analyses of “BPA-free” products. Therefore I investigated such a separation using the Cogent Bidentate C18 2.o™ column. I used reference standards of the three bisphenol compounds and found excellent selectivity amongst them using the column.
                I was able to obtain a separation in under five minutes using a simple, premixed isocratic mobile phase. The method uses reversed phase conditions and a formic acid additive, which would be amenable to transfer to LC-MS. In more complex analyses such as plasma testing for bisphenol compounds, LC-MS may be the preferred choice. In any case, the Bidentate C18 2.o™ would be suitable for bisphenol separations in various types of samples. Analyses such as these may become more important once the health effects of the BPA substitutes are studied more in the future.
                To read more about the application, Click Here.

 Reference:

[1] “100 Times the Damage: Avoid at all Costs – BPA, BPF, BPS ,” Mass Report,  http://massreport.com/100-times-the-damage-avoid-at-all-cost-bpa-bpf-bps/, 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2015-03-25.

Before you blame the column…

…Rule out other possibilities first! Problems you can encounter with peak shape, retention, and so on can often be traced to a component of the HPLC system. For example, consider the following real-world situation which we encountered in our laboratory.

              We were running an HPLC method for ethylbenzene (0.1mg/mL concentration) with a Cogent UDA™ column and observed some problems with the chromatograms (see Figure A). We noticed that our analyte peak was retained longer and longer after each injection and that the peak became broader. Was this changing chromatographic behavior due to column damage? We know the columns are very stable so we investigated other more likely possibilities first.

               We were using a 0.5mL/min isocratic mobile phase from two solvent reservoirs (70% solvent A, 30% solvent B). Thinking there may be a problem with one of the solvent lines, we prepared a premixed mobile phase instead and only used one mobile phase reservoir (solvent A). Under these conditions, we obtained the results in shown in Figure B. Notice how the retention time precision is now very robust and the efficiency is high. This demonstrates that the column performance is fine and the problem was with the solvent B line. Perhaps the issue was at the mixing stage, in which the solvent proportioning valve was not mixing the correct amount of solvent from the B line.

               Also apparent from Figure A was a second, smaller peak that sometimes would show up in the chromatograms and sometimes would not. As before, we investigated system issues as the possible cause. It turned out that it was a problem with the injector. We were using an injection volume of 1 µL, and when we increased it to 5 µL, the peak was consistently present in every run (Figure B).

               So before you blame the column, be sure to inspect everything else thoroughly:

• Check your mobile phase. Are the A and B lines connected to the correct inlet ports? Has the flow rate been calibrated for each line? Is the solvent mixer proportioning valve functioning accurately? When was the mobile phase prepared and does it need to be replaced?

• Check your method. Are you using an appropriate mobile phase/gradient for your compounds? Use an ANP gradient for polar compounds and a reversed phase one for less polar analytes. Are you operating at a proper detection wavelength for your compounds’ UV absorption properties? Before running a sequence, look through your method settings and make sure someone else who used the instrument before you didn't accidentally change anything.

• Check your sample prep. Are the analyte concentrations suitable? Ensure that overload of the column or the detector will not occur at these concentrations and dilute if necessary. Have your samples been properly filtered to remove particulate matter from entering the system and creating blockages? Have you performed percent recovery studies to demonstrate that the analytes are completely present in the final sample for analysis?

• Check your injector. Is the needle going down far enough to reach the liquid sample? Is the syringe aspirating the correct volume of sample?

This is of course not a comprehensive troubleshooting list but it can give you some idea of the type of things that can malfunction. An HPLC analysis can be complex and involves many factors so do not start with blaming the column.