Waters Corporation, 34 Maple Street, Milford, Massachusetts 01757, United States.
Anal Chem. 2021 Apr 13;93(14):5653-5664. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c05078. Epub 2021 Apr 2.
The demand for rapid column screening, computer-assisted method development and method transfer, and unambiguous compound identification by LC/MS analyses has pushed analysts to adopt experimental protocols and software for the accurate prediction of the retention time in liquid chromatography (LC). This Perspective discusses the classical approaches used to predict retention times in LC over the last three decades and proposes future requirements to increase their accuracy. First, inverse methods for retention prediction are essentially applied during screening and gradient method optimization: a minimum number of experiments or design of experiments (DoE) is run to train and calibrate a model (either purely statistical or based on the principles and fundamentals of liquid chromatography) by a mere fitting process. They do not require the accurate knowledge of the true column hold-up volume , system dwell volume (in gradient elution), and the retention behavior ( versus the content of strong solvent φ, temperature , pH, and ionic strength ) of the analytes. Their relative accuracy is often excellent below a few percent. Statistical methods are expected to be the most attractive to handle very complex retention behavior such as in mixed-mode chromatography (MMC). Fundamentally correct retention models accounting for the simultaneous impact of φ, , pH, and in MMC are needed for method development based on chromatography principles. Second, direct methods for retention prediction are ideally suited for accurate method transfer from one column/system configuration to another: these quality by design (QbD) methods are based on the fundamentals and principles of solid-liquid adsorption and gradient chromatography. No model calibration is necessary; however, they require universal conventions for the accurate determination of true retention factors (for 1 < < 30) as a function of the experimental variables (φ, , pH, and ) and of the true column/system parameters (, , dispersion volume, σ, and relaxation volume, τ, of the programmed gradient profile at the column inlet and gradient distortion at the column outlet). Finally, when the molecular structure of the analytes is either known or assumed, retention prediction has essentially been made on the basis of statistical approaches such as the linear solvation energy relationships (LSERs) and the quantitative structure retention relationships (QSRRs): their ability to accurately predict the retention remains limited within 10-30%. They have been combined with molecular similarity approaches (where the retention model is calibrated with compounds having structures similar to that of the targeted analytes) and artificial intelligence algorithms to further improve their accuracy below 10%. In this Perspective, it is proposed to adopt a more rigorous and fundamental approach by considering the very details of the solid-liquid adsorption process: Monte Carlo (MC) or molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are promising tools to explain and interpret retention data that are too complex to be described by either empirical or statistical retention models.
对快速柱筛选、计算机辅助方法开发和方法转移以及通过 LC/MS 分析进行明确化合物鉴定的需求促使分析人员采用实验方案和软件来准确预测液相色谱(LC)中的保留时间。本文讨论了过去三十年中用于预测 LC 中保留时间的经典方法,并提出了提高其准确性的未来要求。
首先,用于预测保留时间的逆方法主要在筛选和梯度方法优化期间应用:运行最小数量的实验或实验设计(DoE),通过仅仅拟合过程来训练和校准模型(无论是纯粹的统计模型还是基于液相色谱的原理和基础)。它们不需要准确了解真实的柱保留体积、系统死体积(在梯度洗脱中)以及分析物的保留行为(相对于强溶剂φ、温度、pH 值和离子强度的含量)。它们的相对精度通常在百分之几以下非常出色。统计方法有望成为处理混合模式色谱(MMC)等非常复杂保留行为的最有吸引力的方法。基于色谱原理的方法开发需要能够同时考虑 φ、、pH 值和的基本正确的保留模型。
其次,用于保留预测的直接方法非常适合于从一个柱/系统配置到另一个柱/系统配置的准确方法转移:这些基于质量的设计(QbD)方法基于固液吸附和梯度色谱的原理和基础。不需要模型校准;但是,它们需要通用约定来准确确定真实保留因子(对于 1 < < 30)作为实验变量(φ、、pH 值和)和真实柱/系统参数(、、分散体积、σ 和程序梯度轮廓在柱入口处的松弛体积 τ以及在柱出口处的梯度变形)的函数。
最后,当分析物的分子结构已知或假定时,保留预测基本上是基于统计方法(如线性溶剂化能量关系(LSERs)和定量结构保留关系(QSRRs))进行的:它们准确预测保留的能力仍然受到限制在 10-30%范围内。它们已与分子相似性方法(其中保留模型是用与目标分析物结构相似的化合物进行校准的)和人工智能算法相结合,以进一步提高其在 10%以下的精度。
在本文中,建议通过考虑固液吸附过程的细节来采用更严格和基础的方法:蒙特卡罗(MC)或分子动力学(MD)模拟是解释和解释保留数据的有前途的工具,这些数据过于复杂,无法用经验或统计保留模型来描述。