PubMed2004
Single component isotherm data of caffeine and phenol were acquired on two different stationary phases for RPLC, using a methanol/water solution (25%, v/v, methanol) as the mobile phase. The columns were the non-endcapped Waters Resolve-C18, and the Waters XTerra MS C18. Both columns exhibit similar C18 -chain densities (2.45 and 2.50 micromol/m2) and differ essentially by the nature of the underivatized solid support (a conventional, highly polar silica made from water glass, hence containing metal impurities, versus a silica-methylsilane hybrid surface with a lower density of less acidic free silanols). Thirty-two adsorption data points were acquired by FA, for caffeine, between 10(-3) and 24 g/l, a dynamic range of 24,000. Twenty-eigth adsorption data points were acquired for phenol, from 0.025 to 75 g/l, a dynamic range of 3000. The expectation-maximization procedure was used to derive the affinity energy distribution (AED) from the raw FA data points, assuming a local Langmuir isotherm. For caffeine, the AEDs converge to a bimodal and a quadrimodal distribution on XTerra MS-C18 and Resolve-C18, respectively. The values of the saturation capacity (q(s,1) approximately equal to 0.80 mol/l and q(s,2) approximately equal to 0.10 mol/l) and the adsorption constant (b1 approximately equal to 3.11/mol and b2 approximately equal to 29.1 l/mol) measured on the two columns for the lowest two energy modes 1 and 2, are comparable. These data are consistent with those previously measured on an endcapped Kromasil-C18 in a 30/70 (v/v), methanol/water solution (q(s,1) = 0.9 mol/l and q(s,2) = 0.10 mol/l, b1 = 2.4 l/mol and b2 = 16.1 l/mol). The presence of two higher energy modes on the Waters Resolve-C18 column (q(s,3) approximately equal to 0.013 mol/l and q(s,4) approximately equal to 2.6 10(-4) mol/l, b3 approximately equal to 252 l/mol and b4 = 13,200 l/mol) and the strong peak tailing of caffeine are explained by the existence of adsorption sites buried inside the C18-bonded layer. It is demonstrated that strong interactions between caffeine and the water protected bare silica surface cannot explain these high-energy sites because the retention of caffeine on an underivatized Resolve silica column is almost zero. Possible hydrogen-bond interactions between caffeine and the non-protected isolated silanol groups remaining after synthesis amidst the C18-chain network cannot explain these high energy interactions because, then, the smaller phenol molecule should exhibit similarly strong interactions with these isolated silanols on the same Resolve-C18 column and, yet, the consequences of such interactions are not observed. These sites are more consistent with the heterogeneity of the local structure of the C18-bonded layer. Regarding the adsorption of phenol, no matter whether the column is endcapped or not, its molecular interactions with the bare silica were negligible. For both columns, the best adsorption isotherm was the Bilangmuir model (with q(s,1) approximately equal to 2 and q(s,2) approximately equal to 0.67 mol/l, b1 0.61 and b2 approximately equal to 10.3 l/mol). These parameters are consistent with those measured previously on an endcapped Kromasil-C18 column under the same conditions (q(s,1) = 1.5 and q(s,2) = 0.71 mol/l, b1 = 1.4 l/mol and b2 = 11.3 l/mol). As for caffeine, the high-energy sites are definitely located within the C18-bonded layer, not on the bare surface of the adsorbent.