Speaker
Description
Green chemistry principles are increasingly applied in chromatographic analysis to reduce the environmental impact associated with high solvent consumption and hazardous waste generation. In this context, the use of bio renewable solvents (BRS) in chromatographic methods offers a sustainable alternative to conventional organic eluents (ex. acetonitrile, methanol), enabling efficient separations while improving safety and reducing ecological footprint.1
This study explored the chromatographic behavior of a selected BRS, belonging to the group of lignocellulose derivatives, whose performance remains poorly characterized, using a Central Composite Face (CCF) 2² experimental design. The effects of two critical factors (the percentage (v/v) of BRS in the mobile phase and the column temperature) on mobile phase viscosity, retention factor (k′), and column backpressure were evaluated through a set of 12 experiments generated by the design of experiments (DoE) software MODDE®, employing a 1% (v/v) toluene solution as a retention marker on a LiChrospher® 100 RP 18 column (125 × 4 mm, 5 µm).
The multiple linear regression model demonstrated excellent fit (R² ≈ 0.99 - 1.00) and predictive reliability (Q² ≈ 0.997) for all responses. Within the studied domain, viscosity ranged from 1.37 to 2.17 mPa·s, column pressure from 84.9 to 160.5 bar, and retention factor from 1.5 to 30.4. Optimal chromatographic performance was achieved at an intermediate percentage of BRS (≈45-55%) in the mobile phase and moderate temperature (≈38-42 °C), where viscosity (≈1.5 mPa·s), retention factor (≈4.7), and pressure (≈122 bar) were simultaneously balanced.
These findings provide a rational basis for selecting sustainable chromatographic conditions, supporting safer and more environmentally responsible analytical practices.
Keywords: bio-renewable solvent, green chemistry, liquid chromatography, CCF experimental design
References:
1. Shaaban, H. New Insights into Liquid Chromatography for More Eco-Friendly Analysis of Pharmaceuticals. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2016, 408, 6925–6938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-9726-2