, Volume 52, Issue 9–10, pp 639–647 | Cite as

Influence of interfacial adsorption on the system constants of the solvation parameter model in gas-liquid chromatography

  • Q. Li
  • C. F. Poole
Originals Gas Chromatography


The influence of interfacial adsorption as a retention mechanism on the system constants of the solvation parameter model for the polar stationary phase poly(diethylene glycol succinate) was studied as a function of phase loading and temperature. The solvation parameter model provides reasonable models for sorption conditions (mixed retention) that are chemically sensible and only slightly less statistically sound that the partition models. Interfacial adsorption leads to a linear change in the system constants that can be predicted as a function of phase loading (volume) for high phase loadings (> 8%w/w) at a constant temperature. The changes in the system constants with temperature show the same trends for the sorption and partition models but with different slopes. As a unifying framework it is suggested that the retention properties of the interfacial region resemble those of the bulk solvent except that the interfacial region is less cohesive and the intensity of polar interactions are reduced. The impact of interfacial adsorption on the interpretation of stationary phase solvation properties, the estimation of retention for computer-aided method development, and the estimation of solute descriptors using the solvation parameter model is indicated.

Key Words

Gas chromatography Solvation parameter model Interfacial adsorption effects System constants 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Poole, C.F.; Kollie, T.O.; Poole, S.K.Chromatographia 1992,34, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Abraham, M.H.; Poole, C.F.; Poole, S.K.J. Chromatogr. A 1999,842, 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Abraham, M.H. InIndoor Air and Human Health, Gammage, R.B.; Berven, B.A., Eds, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL,1996, p. 67–91.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Abraham, M.H.J. Chromatogr. B 2000,745, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Santiuste, J.M.; Garcia-Dominguez, J.R.Anal. Chim Acta 2000,405, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Poole, C.F.; Poole, S.K.; Seibert, D.S.; Chapman C.M.J. Chromatogr. B 1997,689, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Poole, S.K.; Poole, C.F.Anal. Commun. 1996,33, 353–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Abraham, M.H.; Walsh, D.P.J. Chromatogr. 1992,627, 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Grate, J.W.; Abraham, M.H.; Du C.M.; McGill, A.; Shuely W.J.Langmuir 1995,11, 2125–2130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Berezkin, V.G.Adv. Chromatogr. 2000,40, 599–637.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Poole, S.K.; Poole, C.F.J. Chromatogr. 1990,500, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Kersten, B.R.; Poole, C.F.J. Chromatogr. 1987,399, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Poole, S.K.; Kollie, T.O.; Poole, C.F.J. Chromatogr. A 1994,664, 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Poole, S.K.; Poole, C.F.J. Chromatogr. A 1995,697, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Poole, C.F.; Kollie, T.O.Anal. Chim. Acta 1993,282, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Poole, C.F.; Poole, S.K.Chromatography Today, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991, p. 170–176.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Martire, D.E.; Pecsok, R.L.; Purnell, J.H.Faraday Soc. Trans. 1965,61, 2496–2508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Castells, R.C.An. Asoc. Quim. Argent. 1976,64, 155–167.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Abraham, M.H.Chem. Soc. Rev. 1993,22, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Abraham, M.H.; Chadha H.S, InLipophilicity in Drug Action and Toxicology, Pliska, V.; Testa, B.; van de Waterbeemed H, eds, VCH, Weinheim, Germany,1996, p. 311–337.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Platts, J.A.; Butina D.; Abraham, M.H.; Hersey, A.J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999,39, 835–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Poole, C.F.; Poole, S.K.; Abraham, M.H.J. Chromatogr. A 1998,798, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Furton, K.G.; Poole, C.F.J. Chromatogr. 1987,399, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Martin, S.D.; Poole, C.F.; Abraham, M.H.J. Chromatogr. A 1998,805, 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Park, G.; Poole, C.F.J. Chromatogr. A 1996,726, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Kruppa R.F.; Henly, R.S.J. Chromatogr. Sci. 1974,12, 127–130.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Kollie, T.O.; Poole, C.F.; Abraham, M.H.; Whiting, G.S.Anal. Chim. Acta 1992,259, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Poole, S.K.; Poole, C.F.J. Chromatogr. A 1995,697, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Q. Li
    • 1
  • C. F. Poole
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations