Translate this blog

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

How much caffeine is in your coffee?

The amount of caffeine in various beverages can vary widely. Drip-brewed regular coffee has about 555–845 mg/L caffeine content but a shot of espresso can have about 1,691–2,254 mg/L. What some people may not know is that decaffeinated coffee has caffeine as well. The caffeine is chemically removed by a series of extraction procedures (solvents used can include benzene, supercritical CO2, or others). However, even after 8–12 extractions there is still some caffeine remaining. Therefore, decaffeinated coffee has about 24–72 mg/L caffeine.
                This can be studied with HPLC methodology. Here a Cogent Bidentate C18 2.o™ column is used to separate caffeine from other matrix components in three types of common coffee products. The caffeine peak is the most prominent of all the peaks in the espresso sample but is only a minor peak with the decaf sample. Using a caffeine reference standard, a calibration curve could be made which allows for an estimation of the caffeine content in the samples. The calculated values were: espresso: 964 mg/L, regular: 539 mg/L, and decaf: 85 mg/L. These values were mostly close to the literature ranges for each coffee beverage, although the espresso sample had somewhat lower caffeine content than expected.
                Click the link for more info!


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

How to Obtain a Flat Baseline in Gradient Mode

You developed a nice gradient method for your pharmaceutical impurities analysis. The peaks are sharp and symmetrical. The separation is good. The only problem is the baseline, which slopes and makes accurate quantitation of your peaks difficult. There are a couple of ways you can avoid this problem and you might find one easier than the other depending on your situation.
                 The first way is to run a blank. Typically this will be your sample diluent with nothing else in it. You only need to do this once for the method and then you can use it for each sample. Most modern chromatography software has a feature called “blank subtraction.” Here, you would load your sample chromatogram with the sloping baseline and then apply the blank subtraction operation. Every chromatographic feature in the blank will be subtracted from your sample data, resulting in a completely flat baseline. Some analysts may find this cumbersome though because it requires you to run an additional sample. Still, many protocols may require the analyst to run a blank anyway to demonstrate that they don’t have any “ghost peaks” in their sample chromatograms.         
                The second method doesn’t require an additional run but it can be more tricky to initially develop. This technique is called “absorbance matching.” The reason the gradient slope occurs is because of a difference in UV absorbance between the A and B solvents. You don’t notice it in isocratic methods because the solvent composition never changes. Generally, the B solvent will absorb more because of the organic solvent (e.g. acetonitrile, methanol, etc.). In this approach, the goal is to achieve identical absorbance between the two solvents. The two don’t have to have the same absorbance across the whole UV spectrum, just the wavelength you are operating at. To achieve this, add a UV-absorbing species to the A solvent until you don’t see any change in the baseline. Once you know the correct amount, the process should be easy to write into your SOP. Generally though, determining the proper amount is accomplished by trial and error. The additive should be unretained and should not interact with or affect the sample. Examples include nitrate, nitrite, azide compounds, etc.


An example of blank subtraction

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

AQ™ Brand Polypropylene Vial Study (LC-MS) compared to market leading vial

Many scientists use a very common 300µL plastic (polypropylene) vial for chromatography (HPLC) when they have compounds that stick to glass. With the advancement of LCMS, HILIC and ANP chromatography these vials are not useable because they produce spurious peaks. The peaks are due to common chemicals used to make these vials at a low cost. The peaks shown below are from injection mold release agents, clarifiers and antioxidants are added to manufacturing process.

The MicroSolv Advanced Quality™ (AQ) LCMS compatible vials, both screw top and snap top, are made from a proprietary blend of virgin polypropylene that cannot be made with the same speed as our process does not include mold release agents, clarifiers or antioxidants. The higher cost of production is due to slow speed of production but the resulting product is much cleaner than others and can be used confidently with LCMS and HPLC solvents.


Monday, June 30, 2014

Advantages of AQ™ Brand NDX™-Depth Filters

Some analysts may think that selection of a syringe filter for their sample preparation step is of trivial importance. However, there is more to the syringe filter than just membrane material (e.g. nylon vs. PTFE). For instance, lower quality syringe filters may have extractable compounds that can end up in your filtrate. These extractables then show up as unknown peaks in your chromatograms, potentially interfering with peaks of interest. In a study comparing AQ™ Brand NDX filters to those of market leaders, the AQ™ Brand was shown to produce a lower peak area of the extractable and even more so after an initial wash step.

                Another aspect to consider is the hold-up volume. Suppose you have a sample that is available in limited supply. It could be expensive or simply rare. In this case, you don’t want to waste any of the sample and that is exactly what happens in a low quality filter. After the filtration, the amount of liquid remaining in the filter membrane is called the hold-up volume. It is best to minimize this volume and the MicroSolv AQ™ Brand NDX™ Depth Filters outperform competitive filters in this respect.

                If you have to filter a large amount of liquid with a single syringe filter, then lifetime becomes significant. The AQ™ Brand was shown to have a comparable lifetime to competitive filters. These three aspects of the syringe filter should not be overlooked as they can all cause unnecessary problems for the analyst.

                Click the link for more info:

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Method Transfer from 4um to 2.o™ HPLC column

Methods developed on the 4um Cogent™ line of HPLC column products can be readily adapted with near-UHPLC Cogent 2.o™ phases. In this blog, we have a method for forced degradation of atorvastatin (Lipitor®). The gradient separates the main API (atorvastatin) from its more hydrophobic lactone degradant.  The retention is comparable between the 2.2um column (Figure A) and 4um column (Figure B). However, efficiency is higher on the 2.2um phase which is a significant advantage for the user. With higher efficiency, you can obtain better resolution from closely eluting peaks. Also, you will get higher sensitivity due to the increased peak height. The efficiencies for the API were 88,420 plates/meter for the 4um column but 134,800 plates/meter for the 2.o™ phase.

                In this application, a standard HPLC (Agilent HP 1100) was used in both cases. With near-UHPLC columns, you don’t need a full UHPLC system to obtain the benefits of efficiency, resolution, and sensitivity. This is an important aspect since many QC laboratories don’t use UHPLC instrumentation in their routine assays. The only thing to keep in mind is that your column pressure will be higher and you should not exceed 120 bar on a regular HPLC system.
1 - Atorvastatin
2 - Atorvastatin Lactone