Citation
Equations for the calculation of chromatographic figures of merit

Material Information

Title:
Equations for the calculation of chromatographic figures of merit
Creator:
Foley, Joe Preston, 1956-
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Algorithms ( jstor )
Approximation ( jstor )
Asymmetry ( jstor )
Bandwidth ( jstor )
Calibration ( jstor )
Chromatography ( jstor )
Error rates ( jstor )
Figure of merit ( jstor )
Signals ( jstor )
Standard deviation ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Joe Preston Foley. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
12141237 ( OCLC )
0020192903 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF
CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT












By

JOE PRESTON FOLEY















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1983















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



First and foremost, I would like to thank my research director,

John G. Dorsey, not only for helping me with various research projects,

but for being a special friend--for always finding the time to listen

and for always doing the "extra things."

Second, I want to express my gratitude to Thomas J. Buckley and

Sharon G. Lias of the National Bureau of Standards for their help and

the use of their facilities in preparing this document.

Finally, I want to thank all the friends I made in Gainesville for

making my graduate education at the University of Florida the happiest

and most satisfying time of my life.




























iii























To Mom and Dad, for their love, support, and encouragement;

and to my sister Barbara, for leading the way.















TABLE OF CONTENTS



CHAPTER PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................ ...............................iii

ABSTRACT........................................................... vi

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................. .. 1

Overview................................................. 1
Chromatographic Peak Characterization...................... 1
Limit of Detection......................................... 8

2 GENERATION OF THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG)
FUNCTION AND RELATED DATA.................................. 9

Introduction............................................... 9
EMG Evaluation.......................................... ... 9
Background................................................ 9
Evaluation of the Integral Term......................... 10
Obtaining Universal EMG Data............................... 16
Background............................................... 16
Measurement of the Pertinent Peak Parameters.............. 17
Comparison of Universal EMG Data......................... 22
Conclusion.................................... 24

3 EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC
FIGURES OF MERIT FOR IDEAL AND SKEWED PEAKS................ 25

Introduction.................. ........... ................. 25
Derivations............................................... 25
Experimental............................................... 28
Apparatus................................................ 28
Procedure.................. .............................. 28
Results.................................................... 30
Recommended CFOM Equations............................... 30
Other CFOM Equations..................................... 33
Discussion........ ............. .............................. 39
Detailed Discussion of Precision......................... 39
Why Measure At 10% Peak Height?.......................... 41
General Aspects............................ ........ ..... 46
Conclusion................. ............... ...55




iv















4 CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMIT OF DETECTION IN CHROMATOGRAPHY.... 56

Introduction.............................. ................ 56
Identifying Current Problems.............................. 56
Literature Survey Results............................... 56
Numerical Example..................................... 58
Solving the Problems..................................... 60
Eliminating Mistaken Identities........................ 60
Choosing a Model......................................... 63
Using the Correct Units.................................. 66
Converting to Chromatographic Reference Conditions....... 70
The Numerical Example Revisited........................ 79
Conclusion................................................ 81

5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK................................. 82


APPENDICES

A DISCUSSION AND LISTING OF THE BASIC PROGRAM, EMG-U........... 84

B UNIVERSAL EMG DATA AT a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50......... 87

C DERIVATION OF V 95
C DERIVATION OF Vinj,max....................................... 95


REFERENCES................. ..... ................ .................. 96


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. .................... .......................... 100





















v














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF
CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT


By

JOE PRESTON FOLEY


December 1983


Chairman: Dr. John G. Dorsey
Major Department: Chemistry


The measurement and interpretation of several chromatographic

concepts and parameters, hereafter referred to as chromatographic

figures of merit (CFOMs), are improved via equations and concepts

developed in this work.

The previous uses of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG)

model in chromatography are briefly reviewed. A method for evaluating

the EMG function and a set of algorithms for obtaining universal data

are presented and are shown to be simpler and easier to use than those

previously reported. The corresponding BASIC program, EMG-U, is also

briefly discussed.

By use of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) as the skewed

peak model, empirical equations based solely on the graphically

measurable retention time, tR, peak width at 10% peak height, W0.1, and


vi









the empirical asymmetry factor, B/A, have been developed for the

accurate and precise calculation of CFOMs characterizing both ideal

(Gaussian) and skewed peaks. These CFOMs include the observed

efficiency (number of theoretical plates), Nsys; the maximum efficiency
sys
attainable if all asymmetry is eliminated, Nmax; the EMG peak

parameters, tG, oG, and T; the first through fourth statistical moments;

the peak skew and peak excess, YS and YE; and two new CFOMs--the

relative system efficiency, RSE, and the relative plate loss, RPL.

Equations for the number of theoretical plates and the variance (second

central moment) are accurate to within + 1.5% for 1.00 < B/A < 2.76.

Width and B/A at 10% peak height are recommended.

The current problems with the LOD concept in chromatography are

reviewed. They include confusing the LOD with other concepts in trace

analysis; the use of arbitrary, unjustified models; the use of

concentration units instead of units of amount; and the failure to

account for differences in chromatographic conditions (bandwidths) when

comparing LODs.

Two models are proposed for calculating the chromatographic LOD. A

new concept, the standardized chromatographic LOD, is introduced to

account for differences in chromatographic bandwidths of experimentally

measured LODs. The standardized chromatographic LOD is shown to be a

more reliable CFOM than the conventional (non-standardized)

chromatographic LOD.











vii














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION



Overview

Chromatography is a well-known method for the separation and

quantitation of chemical moieties from a (sample) mixture. Over the

years several concepts and parameters, hereafter referred to as

chromatographic figures of merit (CFOMs), have been introduced to

characterize the separation and quantitation. Unfortunately, some of

the CFOMs are often difficult to estimate [those which characterize

chromatographic peaks]; others are ambiguous [e.g., the limit of

detection (LOD)]. The goal of the present work, which is introduced in

more detail in the following two sections, is the improvement of the

measurement and interpretation of these chromatographic figures of

merit.

It is beyond the scope of this work to introduce or review the

development of these CFOMs from either a historical or theoretical point

of view. Such discussions and references to additional discussions may

be found elsewhere (1-10).


Chromatographic Peak Characterization

In recent years there has been considerable interest in the

characterization of experimental chromatographic peaks. Presented in

Table 1.1 are the names, symbols, and general expressions that have

evolved for the parameters used in chromatographic peak


1









Table 1.1. Common Chromatographic Figures of Merit

parameter symbol general expression

theoretical plates N (retention time) /variance

retention time tR peak maximum
M1 peak centroid
tm peak median

empirical asymmetry factor B/A see Figure 1.1

peak height hp see Figure 1.1

peak width at specified height Wa a denotes peak height fraction

peak width at base Wb tangents drawn from inflection points

peak shape function h(t)

statistical moments and related quantities

zeroth (peak area) MO h(t) dt


first (peak centroid) M1 t h(t) dt/MO


2nd central moment (variance) M2 (t M1)2 h(t) dt/MO


nth central moment Mn (t M1)n h(t) dt/MO


peak skew YE M /M23/2


peak excess YS Mn/M22 3





3


characterization. The graphical chromatographic parameters are

illustrated in Figure 1.1.

These CFOMs have been estimated either manually using graphical

measurements made directly from the chromatogram or by a computer

following data acquisition. Both methods have advantages and

disadvantages.

Manual methods were used exclusively at first and are employed

quite extensively today. For arbitrary peak shapes, they are accurate

for only five CFOMs: tR, B/A, hp, Wb, and Wa. If a Gaussian peak shape

is assumed, however, then M1 = tR, and M2 is only a function of Wb, Wa,

or MO and N may subsequently be calculated. Except for higher

even central moments, the remaining CFOMs are zero for Gaussian peaks.

For real chromatographic peaks, it is almost always a mistake to

assume a Gaussian peak shape. Experimentally these ideal, symmetric

peaks are rarely, if ever, observed due to various intracolumn and

extracolumn sources of asymmetry (5,11-23). Kirkland et al. have shown

that the plate count can be overestimated by as much or more than 100%

if any of the three most common Gaussian-based equations are

employed (23).

Computer estimation methods are more accurate than common manual

methods for a given CFOM but are not available to every chromatographer.

The general approach taken has been one of peak statistical moment

analysis (6,11,22-24). Via relatively simple algorithms all the CFOMs

may be determined quite accurately, though the precision of the second

and higher central moments is seriously affected by baseline noise (25).

The failure of the Gaussian function as a peak shape model for real

chromatographic peaks led to the search for a more accurate model and











1.0


F--





0U


-t--
N

SW",=A+B




0.0
O .<


tA tR tB
TIME


Figure 1.1. Graphical chromatographic parameters shown at peak height
fraction a = 0.10. Except for A, B, and B/A at a = 0.10,
all width related measurements are subscripted with the
value of a to prevent ambiguity.





5


the eventual acceptance of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG), a

function obtained via the convolution of a Gaussian function and an

exponential decay function which provides an asymmetric peak profile.

The development, characterization, and theoretical and experimental

justification of this model have been thoroughly reviewed (21,22,26,27).

Previous chromatographic studies (11,12,14,15,17-23,25-31) involving the

EMG function, summarized in Table 1.2, demonstrate the utility of this

skewed peak model.

Adoption of the EMG peak-shape model has improved the estimation of

the CFOMs. A new algorithm for the computer-based peak moment analysis

has been derived (25) and tested (22) which is less sensitive to

baseline noise and the uncertainty of peak start/stop assignments. More

recently, Barber and Carr described a manual method for CFOM

quantitation which requires the graphically measurable retention time

tR, peak width Wa, empirical asymmetry factor B/A, and successive

interpolations from three large-scale universal calibration curves

(31,32).

The primary objective of this part of the present study is the

development, using the EMG model, of accurate equations for CFOM

calculation dependent solely on tR, W0.1, and B/A. The need for

computerized data acquisition is thus circumvented, and, in addition,

CFOM calculation via these equations is expected to be faster and more

precise than the other accurate manual method since no graphical

interpolation is required.

The previously reported methods for evaluating the EMG function

(14,18,19,27) and obtaining chromatographic peak data (19,26,31) were

too inaccurate or too unwieldy to use in the present study, which











Table 1.2. Chromatographic Studies Using the Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Model

Year Subject in Which EMG Model Employed Reference

1959 effects of detector response time and flow sensitivity in GC 14

1959 determination of column efficiency in GLC 15

1966 extracolumn contributions to band broadening 11

1968 effect of detector volume on chromatographic peak shape 17

1969 resolution of overlapped GC peaks via least squares curve fitting 18

1969 effect of relaxation times on chromatographic peak shape 19

1969 effect of recorder response time on chromatographic peak shape 20

1970 least squares approximation of chromatograms 28

1970 resolution of unresolved GC peaks via Newton-Raphson curve fitting 29

1971 analysis of instrumentally distorted, overlapping curves 30

1972 dead volume effects on efficiency in GC 21

1972 theoretical investigation of strongly overlapped chromatographic peaks 27

1977 improved characterization of chromatographic band broadening 25

1977 effects of dead volume and flow rate on peak shape 22

1977 comparison of retention, separation measurement methods 26

1977 extracolumn effects in LC; effect of peak skew on plate count calcs 23











Table 1,2--extended.

1978 instrumental peak distortion (review) 12

1981 graphical deconvolution of EMG chromatographic peaks 31

1983 equations for chromatographic figures of merit Chapter 3, this work





8


employed an Apple II Plus microcomputer. This necessitated, therefore,

the development of a simpler method for evaluating the EMG function and

the incorporation of a simpler, more accurate, and more general set of

algorithms for obtaining the EMG data of interest.


Limit of Detection

The limit of detection (LOD) is generally defined as the smallest

concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected with reasonable

certainty for a given analytical procedure. Though arguably the most

important figure of merit in trace analysis, the LOD remains an

ambiguous quantity in the field of chromatography. Detection limits

differing by orders of magnitude are frequently reported for very

similar (sometimes identical!) chromatographic systems. Such huge

discrepancies raise serious questions about the validity of the LOD

concept in chromatography.

The primary objective of this part of the present work is to

restore the integrity of the LOD concept, to make the chromatographic

LOD a reliable, meaningful figure of merit. This will be accomplished

in two steps: First, the major sources of the discrepancies in

chromatographic detection limits, i.e., the current problems with the

LOD concept, will be identified. Second, each problem will be addressed

and eliminated (or circumvented).














CHAPTER 2
GENERATION OF THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG) FUNCTION
AND RELATED DATA


Introduction

This chapter describes the improvements achieved by this study in

evaluating the EMG function and in obtaining the EMG data of interest.

The results of the present work are compared with those previously

obtained. In addition, the corresponding BASIC computer program, EMG-U,

is listed and discussed briefly in Appendix A. Universal EMG data are

tabulated in Appendix B. It is hoped that this will facilitate the use

of the EMG function, whenever applicable, in modeling studies in

chromatography or any other area.


EMG Evaluation

Background

Description of the EMG function. It is beyond our scope to derive

the EMG function from first principles. Those who so desire should see

the treatments given by Sternberg (11, pp. 250-253) or Kissinger et al.

(12, pp. 159-162). Their results are shown below in eq 2.1.


z/(2)1/2
hEMG(t) = [AG(2)1/2/] exp[0.5(G/T)2 (t-tG)/T] exp(-x2)dx (2.1)


PE1 E1 1I


where z = (t tG)/aG aG/T. (2.2)

Equation 2.1 shows that the EMG function is defined by three parameters:

9





10


the retention time, tG, and standard deviation, oG, of the parent

Gaussian function; and the time constant, T, of the exponential decay

function. In addition, the quotient T/aG is a fundamental measure of an

EMG peak's asymmetry. The arbitrary constant A determines the amplitude

of the function. Note that the right hand side of eq 2.1 can be broken

into 3 parts: the pre-exponential term (PE ), the exponential term

(El), and the integral term (I1).

Discrepancies. A literature survey which I conducted revealed

three discrepancies in eq 2.1. In the first instance, a factor of 2

difference observed in the pre-exponential term, PE1, is relatively

unimportant because this affects only the zeroth statistical moment

(peak area). All other parameters, including higher order moments which

are normalized by the zeroth moment, are unchanged by this factor of 2.

The second and third discrepancies are serious, however. Both were

observed in the denominator of the second quotient, (t tG)/T, within

the exponential term, E1. In one case, an additional factor of 2 was

present; in the other, aG was added to this denominator and omitted from

the numerator of the pre-exponential term, PE1. These errors invalidate

those expressions for the EMG function.


Evaluation of the Integral Term

Range of z. The methods used to evaluate eq 2.1 have frequently

been omitted from the EMG literature. Since the evaluation of the first

two terms is straightforward, the reported methods differ only in the

manner in which the integral, I., is determined; the I1 approximations,

in turn, depend on the value of z in the upper limit of Ii. It is

convenient to group the range of possible z values into three regions:

a) z < -3; b)-3 z < 4; and c) z Z 4 In region c, the definite





11



integral equals the constant (7)1/2 to within 0.01% and is thus

virtually independent of z. In regions a and b, however, the relative

value of the definite integral is highly dependent on z. Numerous

techniques permit the accurate evaluation of Ii in region b. In region

a, however, as z becomes more negative, it becomes more difficult to

approximate the integral to the same (high) relative accuracy. Thus it

is pertinent to examine the practical minimum values of z for EMG peaks.

As seen from eq 2.2, z depends on a) the normalized difference

between the time of interest, t, and tG; and b) the reciprocal of the

peak asymmetry, (T/oG)- For a given peak shape (constant T/oG), z

will therefore be smallest (most negative) at the starting threshold of

the peak, which may be conveniently defined as that time (t) on the

leading edge of the EMG peak where the value of the function [hEMG(t)]

is a specified fraction, B, of its maximum value, i.e., hEMG(t)/hP = B.

Moreover, the minimum z value will decrease as the starting threshold is

decreased. This is shown in Table 2.1 where minimum z values are

tabulated for EMG peaks with asymmetries ranging from 0.1 to 3. Another

trend illustrated is that for a given starting threshold, Zmin increases

with increasing asymmetry (T/oG).

Previous methods. Given this wide range of z values, how is I1

(in eq 2.1) evaluated? Except for a vague reference to an unspecified

polynomial approximation (30), all previous methods for calculating Ii

employ different techniques for different values of z. For moderate z

values (e.g., regions b and c, above), some methods utilized the well-

known identity

exp(-y2)d1 + erf(x)] (2
exp(-y2)dy = 0.5(r)1/2[1 + erf(x)] (2.3)
J-0





12








Table 2.1. Minimum z Values Needed to Evaluate EMG Peaks for
Various Asymmetries (T/oG) and Starting Thresholds (B)a

B 0.001 0.01 0.1
T/OCG

0.10 b -12.9 -12.1

0.15 -10.3 9.6 8.7

0.20 8.6 7.9 7.0

0.25 7.5 6.9 6.0

0.30 6.8 6.2 5.3

1.00 4.4 3.6 2.7

3.00 3.6 2.8 1.9




aSee eq 2.2 and text for description of z, T/oG, and B.
Values for z have been rounded.

An underflow error occurs z < -13, thus preventing its
measurement.





13


(where erf is the error function) in order to take advantage of error

function subroutines resident in the computers used (19,27). Others

used eq 2.3, but approximated the error function by interpolation from a

set of tabulated areas (14,18). For small z values (region a, above),

the error function techniques were sufficiently inaccurate to warrant

the use of other methods instead. In nearly every instance some type of

asymptotic series was employed (14,19,27). In the lone exception, a

Gaussian function was substituted for the EMG function for any part of

the peak profile where very small z values were encountered (18).

This work. The approach taken in this study is to transform the

integral in eq 2.1 via change of variable [x = y/(2)1/2] to

I z
(7r)1/2 exp(y2)dy/(2r)1/2


The EMG function can now be written as


hG(t) =[AoG(2T)1/2/T][EI (see eq 2.1)] /exp(-y2)dy/(2T)1/2 (2.4)


PE4 14


The integral in eq 2.4 can be approximated by a polynomial approximation

14(zO) = 1- I4(z<0), where

NF(z) = exp(-z2/2)/(27)1/2, P(q) = blq + b2q2 + b3q3 + b4q4 + b5q5,

q = (1 + pz)-1 and p,bl,...,b5 are constants given in Table 2.2 (33).

Comparison. The values obtained for 14 are compared to the true

values (34,35) in Table 2.3 from z = -10 to z > 3.9. In addition, since


14 = I1/(7)1/2 (2.5)

they can be compared to values obtained for I1 via an asymptotic





14







Table 2.2. Constants in the Polynomial Approximation
for 14 in eq 2.4a


p = 0.2316419 b3 = 1.781477937


b, = 0.319381530 b4 = -1.821255978


b2 = -0.356563782 b5 = 1.330274429



aSee text immediately after eq 2.4 or reference 33.











Table 2.3. Accuracy of the Polynomial Approximation for 14 in Equation 2.4a

z 14, true (34) 14, this work 14, previous workb % REc

-12 d 1.83 x 10-33 1.78 x 10-33 + 3.1

-10 7.6 x 10-24 7.77 x 10-24 7.62 x 10-24 + 2.0

- 6.2 x 10-16 6.28 x 10-16 6.22 x 10-16 + 1.0

- 6 9.9 x 10-10 9.90 x 10-10 9.87 x 10-10 + 0.4

- 4 3.2 x 10-5 3.169 x 10-5 3.166 x 10-5 + 0.09

- 2 0.0227 0.0227 --- < +0.01

0 0.5000 0.5000 --- < +0.01

2 0.9772 (35) 0.9772 --- < +0.01

>3.9 1.0000 (35) 1.0000 --- < +0.01



aSee eqs 2.2, 2.4, and 2.1 for expressions for z, I4, and II, respectively.

bSee reference 27 and note that 14 = I/()1/2.

CPercentage error in 14, this work compared to 14, true for z > -2, and

compared to 1/(r) /2, previous work for z < -4.

Not reported for z < -10.





16


series (27), the most accurate method reported for z < -3. (Comparison

with values for 11 obtained via error function techniques when z > -3

(I4 > 10-3) is not illustrative since the maximum absolute error in the

polynomial approximation I4(z) is estimated to be 7.5 x 10-8.)

Table 2.3 shows that our method for evaluating 14 is exceptionally

accurate for moderate values of z. Moreover, it compares favorably with

the asymptotic series method for evaluating Ii, except for z < -8 where

the latter method is somewhat better. Re-examination of Table 2.1

shows, however, that for all practical purposes z > -8 whenever T/OG >

0.2. Thus our method for evaluation of 14 can be used to evaluate the

EMG function to within 1% or less for T/OG 2 0.2.

While being slightly less accurate than the most accurate previous

method, the new technique for evaluating the EMG function is much more

convenient than any of the previous methods. Only one simple subroutine

requiring just a few programming lines (see lines 2990-3160 in Appendix

A) is needed, whereas the other methods require at least two

subroutines, if implemented on any computer without a built-in error

function routine (i.e., nearly all microcomputers and many

minicomputers).


Obtaining Universal EMG Data

Background

Using the polynomial approximation for the integral in eq 2.4, the

EMG function can be evaluated over the entire practical time range.

Depending on the data required for the modeling process of interest, the

EMG peaks could be generated "on the fly" as needed. Alternatively, the

necessary EMG data could be generated (and stored) in advance and

accessed when needed. Though the storage requirements may seem





17


prohibitive for the latter, given a T/OG value and a peak height

fraction, a, three quantities completely specify an EMG peak (31).

Figure 1.1 shows an EMG peak with its pertinent graphical parameters.

Regardless of the retention time, tG, and standard deviation, oG of the

(unconvoluted) parent Gaussian peak (not shown), (B/A)a, Wa/aG, and (tR-

tG)/aG are universal constants so long as T/OG and a remain fixed.

Recent work has utilized these universal data sets almost exclusively

(31).

Experimentally, three parameters must be determined in order to

calculate the universal data: tR, tA, and tB (see Figure 1.1). Note

that t. must be obtained before tA or tB because hp = hEMG(tR) is needed

for the latter.


Measurement of the Pertinent Peak Parameters

Previous methods. In the past, tR has been determined by one or

more of the following methods: a) peak displacement data and knowledge

of tG (19); b) differentiation of hEMG(t) and solving for roots (26);

and c) least squares fitting of the top of the peak with a quadratic

gram polynomial (26,31).

Once tR has been found, tA and tB can be located. In the only

method reported previously, two points [tl, hEMG(t), [t2, hEMG(t2)

are found so that ti < tA < t2 (or t < tB < t2). Linear interpolation

yields the approximation for tA (or tB).

This work. The approach for finding these quantities is based on

iterative search mechanisms, as the flowchart in Figure 2.1 shows. In

the case of tR, initial time limits are easily found using the fact that

tR is always greater than tG. The EMG function is then evaluated from





18







Find initial time limits





hE(t)
hEJMt)

Y

Calculate new time limits




dt < d Y M Calculate value of t (and hp),
<4 tA or t .

N

Decrease value of dt




Figure 2.1. Simplified flowchart for locating tR (and hp), tA, or tB
The EMG peak parameters must be input before beginning tRis
search.





19


the lower time limit to the upper time limit in increments of dt. When

the maximum is found, new lower and upper time limits [given by

t(current) 2dt and t(current), respectively] closer to the peak

maximum are set, the time increment is decreased, and the search is

begun again. The retention time, tR, is approximated by t(last) -

dtmin*

The algorithm for estimating tA (or tB) is similar to the tA (or

tB) search algorithm previously discussed in that the time limits are

analogous. Since tA < tR < tB, initial values for tI and t2 are easily

determined. To locate tA (or tB), the EMG function is then evaluated

from t = t2 to tI in decrements of dt (or from ti to t2 in increments of

dt) until hEMG(t) < ahp. New values for tI and t2 [given by t(current)

and t(current) + dt, respectively] closer to tA (or tB) are then set,

the time decrement (increment) is decreased, and the search is repeated.

This is continued until tI and t2 are known to the desired precision; tA

(or tg) is then given by (tI + t2)/2.

The maximum error in the values of tR, tA, tB and related universal

EMG quantities obtained via these search algorithms is presented in

Table 2.4. In all cases the error is dependent on the smallest (most

precise) time increment (or decrement), dtmin, used in the last

iteration of each search. In theory, dtmin could be as small as

desired. Due to the finite precision of computers, however, the time

increment, dt, would ultimately be reduced to such a low value that


hEMG(t) = hEMG(t+dt). (2.6)


Henceforth the algorithms would cease to function accurately, if at all.





20








Table 2.4. Maximum Errors in the Universal
EMG Data and Selected Component Parameters


Parametera Maximum Error


R dtmin


tA tB + 1/2 dtmin


A = tR-tA B = tB-tR 3/2 dtmin


Wa/oG = (tB-tA)/CG dtmin/oG


(tRtG)/aG dtmin/G



aA, B, tR, tA, and tB defined in Figure 1.1;

oG' tG, and dtmin described in text.





21


As dt is decreased, the tR search algorithm will fail first, since

the slope of the EMG function is smallest in the region of tR. Somewhat

smaller (more precise) dtmin's could be employed in the searches for tA

and tB before the algorithm breakdown described by eq 2.6 would occur.

The increase in precision of tA and tB is probably not worth the effort,

however, since two out of the three universal EMG data expressions are

dependent on the least precise quantity, tR.

The minimum usable value of dt depends on the precision of the

computer employed and on the value of GG chosen. In this study, the

experimentally measured minimum ratio of dt/aG was 0.0002 for 0.1 < T/GG

< 3 using single precision arithmetic. Multiple precision capabilities

would allow a still lower dt/aG ratio to be used.

Comparison. The algorithms for tR, tA, and tB may be compared as

follows:

1. With the exception of the quadratic least squares method for finding
t,, all of the methods for obtaining tR, tA, and tB are designed for
simulated data (essentially no noise).

2. The two algorithms for calculating tA (or tB) are quite similar.
Both require two points which closely bracket the desired peak height
fraction, a, and both are relatively unbiased. The subsequent
interpolation performed in the previously described algorithm is
potentially more precise than the averaging of the final time limits in
the proposed search algorithm. If tA and tB are already known as
precisely as or more precisely than tR, however, additional improvements
in their precision, even if realized, will not yield significant
increases in the precision of B/A and (tR-tG)/cG.

3. Our approach for determining tR, though crude, is superior to the
other three methods previously discussed for the following reasons:
i) It is a general algorithm. Whereas methods a and b are specific to
the EMG model, our search mechanisms will work for that and other peak
models as well.
ii) It is accurate and unbiased. In contrast, the quadratic least
squares fitting method, though general, suffers from a small, but
nevertheless observable bias (due to a determinate error) which
increases with increasing peak asymmetry (26).
iii) It is easy to understand and implement. The other methods are
unnecessarily complex, though they admittedly have the potential
for greater precision.





22



4. The proposed search algorithms for determining tR, tA, and tB are
superior to the previous methods because they can be de-bugged more
easily. By having the time and the value of the EMG function printed
every time the EMG function is evaluated, the programmer can literally
watch the computer perform the search. Since the search logic is so
simple, programming errors are easily detected. Upon elimination of the
errors, the print statement may be removed.


Comparison of Universal EMG Data

Table 2.5 shows representative sets of universal EMG data obtained

from this study and from a previous work (32) which utilized the

quadratic least squares method and the interpolation method for the

location of tR and tA (or tB), respectively. The precision is reported

for our data (in terms of maximum errors) and is assumed to be no worse

than + 1 in the least significant digit of the previously reported data.

Several points should be noted:

1. Although this difference is slight or non-existent at high
asymmetries, the previously obtained universal data are somewhat more
precise. This is expected since the algorithms used in locating tR, tA,
and tB are potentially more precise than those developed here.

2. The data sets are in excellent agreement for all three universal EMG
quantities at low asymmetries (T/oG I 0.5). This agreement is
especially significant at T/OG = 0.1, because it shows that the moderate
errors introduced by the polynomial approximation for 14 in eq 2.4 when
-12 < z < -8 (see Table 2.3) are not transmitted to the universal EMG
data.

3. Whereas the Wa/aG data reported previously are consistent with the
corresponding data of this study over the entire range of T/aG, the
remaining data sets are discordant for T/aG 2 1.0. Relative to the
current data sets, the previous ones for (tR-tG)/aG and (B/A)a appear to
be slightly overestimated and underestimated, respectively. This
discrepancy is due to the use of a least squares fitting method in the
previous measurement of tR which overestimates this quantity for EMG
peaks (26) and other types of skewed peaks. This bias increases from an
insignificant value at low T/aG to an observable one at T/OG 2 1.0.

4. Despite the differences noted above, the general interlaboratory
agreement is quite good. Though the current data are more accurate,
either set of EMG data can be used with confidence for modeling studies.











Table 2.5. Comparison of Universal Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Data
Obtained from this Study and a Previous Study (32) at a = 0.10


T/oG B/A W/OG (tR-tG)/G
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Previous This Previous This Previous
Studya Work Difference Studyb Work Difference Studyb Work Difference


0.1 1.0013 + 0.0003 1.00147198 +0.0002 4.3142 4.31419 none 0.0940 0.0939102 -0.0001


0.5 1.0927 + 0.0003 1.0926010 -0.0001 4.7372 4.73722 none 0.4282 0.428337 +0.0001


1.0 1.3621 0.0003 1.361596 -0.0005 5.6632 5.66330 +0.0001 0.6974 0.697960 +0.0006


2.0 2.0555 + 0.0004 2.05414 -0.0014 7.9154 7.91554 +0.0001 1.0180 1.01911 +0.0011


3.0 2.7659 + 0.0004 2.76371 -0.0022 10.2602 10.2602 none 1.2154 1.21700 +0.0016



aMaximum error reported for each B/A datum of this study.

bMaximum errors are + 0.0002 for all W/oG, (tR-tG)/aG data of this study.





24


Conclusion

Though the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) model has already

been employed in numerous studies in chromatography as Table 1.2 shows,

its usage might have been still more extensive had it not been for some

confusing discrepancies and for the overly complex methods used for its

evaluation reported previously. Hopefully the clarification of these

discrepancies and presentation of a simple method for evaluating the EMG

function and obtaining universal data will encourage more scientists in

all fields to use the EMG model, when appropriate.














CHAPTER 3
EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC
FIGURES OF MERIT FOR IDEAL AND SKEWED PEAKS



Introduction

Adoption of the EMG model for chromatographic peak characterization

results in a new set of chromatographic figures of merit (CFOMs) which

are listed in Table 3.1. These CFOMs consist of fundamental and

derived EMG parameters, the latter containing explicit expressions for

the first through fourth statistical moments defined previously in

Table 1.1. Included among these new CFOMs are the following: the

retention time, tG, and standard deviation, QG, of the associated parent

Gaussian peak from which the skewed peak is derived; the exponential

modifier, T; the fundamental ratio, T/oG, which characterizes peak

asymmetry; the observed efficiency (number of theoretical plates) of a

given (asymmetric) chromatographic system, Nsys; the maximum efficiency

a given system could achieve, Nmax, if all sources of asymmetry were

eliminated; and finally, two CFOMs proposed originally in this work

which demonstrate how peak asymmetry drastically reduces chromatographic

efficiency--the relative system efficiency, RSE, and the relative plate

loss, RPL.


Derivations

If the estimate G obtained from using a Gaussian peak shape

equation is used to approximate the true value T of a CFOM for an

asymmetric peak, the relative error RE which results is defined as

25




26







Table 3.1. Chromatographic Figures of Merit Based on
the Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Model

Fundamental

tG' G, T, T/aG


Derived


Nsys R2/(G2 + T2)


Nmax = (G/G)2

RSE (Nsys/Nmax) (tG/tR)2 = /M2


RPL = [(Nmax Nsys)/Nmax (tG/tR)2 = 1 RSE = T2M2


M = tG + T


M2 = oG2 + T2

M3 = 2 T3


M4 = 3aG4 + 6oG2 T2 + 9 T4


YS = M3/M23/2

YE = M4/M22 3




27



RE = (G T)/T (3.1)

which can be rearranged to give

T = G/(RE + 1) (3.2)

Thus, the true value T and the Gaussian approximation G for the CFOM are

related by the correction term (RE + 1) in the denominator of eq 3.2.

Kirkland et al. have shown that

RE = f(T/oG) (3.3)


for the three popular Gaussian-based methods for determining plate

counts of a system (23). Equation 3.3 should hold, in fact, for any

CFOM for which a Gaussian approximation exists except tG. Since Barber

and Carr have shown (31) that

T/OG = f(B/A) (3.4)


successive substitution of eqs 3.3 and 3.4 into eq 3.2 yields

T = G/[f(B/A) + 1] (3.5)

Although the exact form of f(B/A) is unknown, a least squares curve

fitting of an RE versus B/A plot can give an excellent approximation.

The above approach was used for calculation of Nsys, oG' and M2.

Following this,T was calculated (see sixth equation, Table 3.1) by


T = [M2 "G2 1/2 (3.6)


For the determination of tG, the universal relationship


(tR tG)/OG = f(T/OG) (3.7)


previously reported (31) was rearranged and combined with eq 3.4 to give



tG = tR oGf(B/A) (3.8)





28



where f(B/A) was approximated by a least squares fit of (tR tG)/r G

vs. B/A.

Since tR, B/A, and W0.1 are graphically measurable, all the

remaining CFOMs can be calculated once the fundamental parameters aG' T,

and tG have been determined.


Experimental

Apparatus

An Apple II Plus 48K RAM microcomputer was programmed in BASIC for

EMG peak generation. A curve-fitting program available from Interactive

Microware (P.O. Box 771, State College, Pa., 16801) with linear,

geometric, exponential, and polynomial capabilities was used for the

unweighted least squares fitting of various data sets.


Procedure

EMG Peak Generation. Except as otherwise noted, values of A = 1,

tG =100, and aG = 5 were used in eq 2.4 for EMG peak generation. The

T/OG ratio was varied from 0.1 to 3 in 0.05 increments producing data

equivalent to 59 peaks. The times for tR, tA, and tB (see Figure 1.1)

at a = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 for each of the 59 peaks were determined to

within 0.001, using the simple search algorithm described in Chapter 2;

corresponding values of W and B/A were then computed.

Development of the CFOM equations. Textfiles of RE(Nsys, M2, GG)

vs. (B/A)0.1,0.3,0.5, (t tG)/UG vs. (B/A)0.1,0.3,0.5, and RSE vs.

(B/A)0.,0.3,0.5 were made for 0.1 < T/OG 0.3. The Gaussian relations

G = W0./4.291932 and M2 = (W0.1/4.291932)2 were used in the Gaussian

approximations for Nsys, aG, and M2 at a = 0.1. Similar equations were

used for M2 and oG at a = 0.3, 0.5. The true values of Nsys, 0G, M2,





29



and RSE were computed from the known values of T, cG' tG, and tR for a

given peak.

The CFOM equations were developed by unweighted least squares curve

fitting. The relationship between several quantities [e.g., RE(N),

(B/A)a, Wa/G] and T/OG has been shown previously (23,31) to be

nonlinear for 0 < T/G < 0.5 and nearly linear for 0.5 < T/GG < 3.

Because similar relationships were observed in some of the textfiles

above, least squares fitting was limited to about the same T/aG range

0.5 3 (1.09 ( B/A < 2.76) except for the RSE vs. B/A textfile where

the complete set of values was used in the regression analysis.

Although the least squares fittings of the various B/A textfiles were

initially judged by visual inspection and the coefficient of

determination (square root of the correlation coefficient), their final

evaluation was based on the accuracy and simplicity of the resulting

CFOM equations.

For ease of use, the CFOM equations were first simplified

algebraically and then by the successive rounding of numerical

coefficients. The occasional nearness of the decimal coefficients to

whole numbers was exploited. For example, if f(B/A) = 1.02(B/A) + 0.69,

then for 1.09 B/A < 2.76, the much simpler function

f(B/A) = B/A + 0.72 is approximately the same (exactly if B/A = 1.5) and

the accuracy of this function is not significantly affected.

All CFOM equations were simplified as much as possible--any more

rounding of the coefficients will result in appreciably greater error.

Evaluation of the CFOM equations. The accuracy of the CFOM

equations was evaluated in terms of four parameters, listed in

decreasing order of importance: the percent relative error limits




30



(%RELs) which represent the maximum possible error of the CFOM equations

within the specified B/A range; the mean percent relative error or bias,

%RE = CZRE/n; the average magnitude of the percent relative error,

ZIRE /n; and the standard deviation of the percent relative error.

The precision of the empirical, EMG-based CFOM equations and three

Gaussian CFOM equations was calculated via error propagation theory and

is reported as percent relative standard deviation (%RSD). The

required precision estimates of tR, Wa, and (B/A)a (the graphically

measurable quantities) were obtained using data from a previous

study (32).


Results

Recommended CFOM Equations

Listed in Table 3.2 are the empirical CFOM equations based on tR,

W0.1, and B/A measurements (see Figure 1.1) which we recommend.

Accuracy. Using equation 1 in Table 3.2, the true efficiency of a

chromatographic system, Nsys, may be estimated to within 1.5% for both

Gaussian and exponentially tailed peaks within the asymmetry range 1.00

. B/A < 2.76. Equations for M2, tG, and MI are equally if not more

accurate over this asymmetry range.

All CFOMs except RPL, M3, YS, and YE can be estimated to within

+ 5% for 1.09 < B/A < 2.76, the asymmetry range over which most of the

curve fitting was performed.

All CFOM equations are accurate to within 5% for 1.19 : B/A <

2.76, and 18 out of 21 are accurate to within + 2%.








Table 3.2. Recommended Equations for Chromatographic Figures of Merita
asymmetry % rel % RSD
no. equation range (B/A) error limits limits

1 N =sys (tR/0.1)2/(B/A + 1.25) 1.00 2.76 -1.5, +1.0 + 2.5
2.77 4.00 -10.0, -1.5

2a M2 = 0.12/[1.764 (B/A)2 11.15 (B/A) + 28] 1.00 2.76 -1.5, +0.5 + 2.2


2b M2 t2/Nsys 1.00 2.76 -1.0, +1.5 2.4


3 = W0.12/[3.27 (B/A) + 1.2] 1.09 2.76 -1.0, +0.5b 2.0


4a T = [M2(eq 2a) GG2]1/2 1.09 2.76 -1.0, +3.5c f


4b T = [M2(eq 2b) ~G2]1/2 1.09 2.76 -0.5, +5.0 f


5a T/GG = T (eq 4a)/aG 1.09 2.76 -1.0, +4.5 f


5b T/aG = T(eq 4b)/oG 1.09 2.76 -0.5, +6.0c f


6 tG t oG[-0.193(B/A)2 + 1.162(B/A) 0.545] 1.00 2.76 + 0.5d + 0.2


7 Nmax = (tG/G)2 1.09 2.76 -0.5, +1.0 + 2.0

8 RSE = 0.99(B/A)-2.24 1.00 2.76 + 2.0 + 4.5


9 RPL = 1 RSE 1.09 2.76 -6.0, +1.50 f







Table 3.2--extended.

10 MI = tG + T (eq 4a or eq 4b) 1.00 2.76 + 1.0d + 0.2


11a M3 = 2[T(eq 4a)]3 1.09 2.76 -2.5, +10.5C f


11b M3 = 2[T(eq 4b)]3 1.09 2.76 -1.5, +16.0e f


12a Mg = 3G4 + 6cG2 4a2 + 9Tr4a 1.09 2.76 -3.0, +1.5 f


120 h1 = 30G + 6G2 4b2 + 94b 1.09 2.76 -2.0, +3.5 f


13a YS = M3(eq 11a)/[M2(eq 2a)]3/2 1.09 2.76 -1.0, +10.0c f


13b YS = M3(eq 11b)/[M2(eq 2b)]3/2 1.09 2.76 -0.5, +14.5e f


14a YE = M4(eq 12a)/[M2(eq 2a)]2 3 1.09 2.76 -1.5, +14.0c f


14b YE = M4(eq 12b)/[M2(eq 2b)]2 3 1.09 2.76 -0.5, +19.5e f


aBased on tR, W0.1, and B/A measurements depicted in Figure 1.1. B/A measurements should be made to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.
bError limits are -4.0%, -1.0% for 1.00 < B/A < 1.09.
CError limits are + 2.0% or less for 1.19 < B/A < 2.76.
dError limits reported for tG/oG = 20. For tG/oG > 20, the error limits will be smaller than those reported.
eError limits are between + 2.0% and + 5.0% for 1.19 < B/A < 2.76.
fPrecision of this CFOM is a function of peak shape. See plot of % RSD versus B/A in Figure 3.1.





33


Except for eqs 11b, 13b, and 14b which had biases of +0.976%,

+0.820%, and +1.111%, respectively, the bias for every equation given in

Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 was less than 0.6%.

Precision Summary. For the equations in Table 3.2, the estimated

relative standard (RSD) limits obtained via propagation of error theory

for Nsys, M2, aG, Nmax, and RSE were all less than or equal to 4.5%.

RSD limits for tG and M1 were + 0.2%.

The precision of the EMG equations in Table 3.2, the width-based

Gaussian equations, and the calibration curve method of Barber and Carr

(31) is compared for Nsys, M2, and oG in Table 3.5. The results shown

for the Gaussian equations are valid for 50%, 30%, and 10% width

measurements because RSD(W0.5) = RSD(W0.3) = RSD(W.1). The slightly

greater imprecision observed for the EMG equations is due to uncertainty

in the B/A measurement not required for the Gaussian equations. The

somewhat larger %RSDs for the method of Barber and Carr are probably due

to interpolation uncertainties (from the calibration curves) unique to

this method.

The precision of the remaining CFOMs in Table 3.2 was found to be

highly dependent on the peak shape. Rather than reporting RSD limits,

the RSDs for several CFOMs or groups of CFOMs have been plotted vs B/A

in Figure 3.1.


Other CFOM Equations

Listed in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 are smaller sets of CFOM equations

developed only for use in determining if a real chromatographic peak is

well-modeled by an EMG peak and should not be used to routinely

calculate any CFOM (including Nsys) since they are usually less

accurate, less precise, and more complex than the analogous equations in








Table 3.3. Equations for Use Only in Peak Modelinga
% rel %RSD
equation error limitsb limitsb

NSys = 6.88(tR/W0.1)2/[(B/A)0.3 0.3] + 2.0% + 4.0


M2,a W032/-3.85(BA)33+23(B/A)0.32-47.9(B/A)0.3+38.7 -0.5, +1.0 + 4.0


M2,b = R/Nsys 2.0 4.1


'G = W0.3/[2.b(B/A)0.3 + 0.48] -2.0, +1.0 + 2.5


Ta = [2,a oG2 1/2 -0.5, +6.Oc d


Tb = [2,b OG2 1/2 -1.5, +9.5e d


tG = tR O[0.6(B/A).32 + 2.58(B/A)0 1.58] 0.5f + 0.2


aBased on tR, W03, and (B/A)0.3 measurements. (B/A)o.3 measurements should be made to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.
bValid for 1.06 < (B/A)0.3 < 2.08, which corresponds to 1.09 < (B/A) .I 2.76.

CError limits are -0.5%, +2.0% for 1.19 < (B/A)0.1 < 2.76.

dprecision ranges from + 13.9% at (B/A)0.1 = 1.09 to + 2.0% at (B/A)o.I = 2.76 in a manner similar
to the T, T/OG curve shown in Figure 3.1.

eError limits are -1.5%, +4.0% for 1.19 < (B/A)0. <2.76.

Error limits reported for tG/oG = 20. For tG/OG > 20, the error limits will be smaller than those
reported.









Table 3.4. Equations for Use Only in Peak Modelinga
% rel %RSD
equation error limits limits

Nsys = 1.83(tR/WO.5)2/[(B/A)o.5 0.7] + 2.0 + 9.4


M2,a = 0.52/[-8.2(B/A)0.5341 .(B/A)0.52-72.3(B/A)0.5+44.6] -1.0, +2.0 7.7


2,b = R2/ys 2.0 9.4


oG = W0.5/[2.5(B/A)0.5] + 2.0 + 3.2


Ta = [M2,a G2]1/2 -1.0, +5.5C d


Tb = [2,b oG211/2 -1.0, +2.5 d


tG = tR aG[-1.46(B/A)0.2 + 5(B/A)0.5 3.14] 0.5e 0.2


aBased on tR, W0.5, and (B/A)0.5 measurements. (B/A)0.5 measurements should be made to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.


bValid for 1.04 < (B/A)0.5 < 1.70, which corresponds to 1.09 < (B/A)0. 2.76.

CError limits are -1.0$, +2.0% for 1.19 (B/A)0.1 < 2.76.

dprecision ranges from + 24.5% at (B/A)0.1 = 1.09 to 3.2% at (B/A)0.1 = 2.76 in a manner similar
to the T, T/OG curve shown in Figure 3.1.

eError limits reported for tG/OG = 20. For tG/OG > 20, the error limits will be smaller than those
reported.





36








Table 3.5. Precisiona Comparison of Three Graphical Methods for
Estimating Nsys, M2, and "G


Nsys M2 aG
method

Gaussian eqs + 2.0 + 2.0 + 1.0


empirical eqs,
Table III, + 2.5 + 2.4 + 2.0
this work

calibration curve
method, reported 5 3 3
previously (31)


aReported as percent relative standard deviation (%RSD).
Precision of equations estimated via error propagation, using
data of Table 3.6.






























Figure 3.1. Dependence of precision on peak asymmetry for several
chromatographic figures of merit (CFOMs). The precision of all
other CFOMs (Ns s' M2, etc.) is essentially independent of peak
shape and is included in Tables 3.2-3.7.









v/8

8Q" g'9Z 3' 6'1 9'1 '1 I

7Idl

SX 'L2




-01
coo





-0
Cl)


gIZ





39



Table 3.2. However, the accuracy and precision for M2, G', tG and T at

a = 0.3 and 0.5 are still sufficient to permit peak modeling decisions

to be made.


Discussion

Detailed Discussion of Precision

Shown in Table 3.6 are the precision data for tR, Wa, and (B/A)a

used in this study. The RSD results were obtained by converting

previously reported raw precision data (32) to the form appropriate for

error propagation analysis for the conditions specified in Table 3.6.

Data excluded in the previous study for (B/A 1)a were also excluded in

this analysis. The RSDs of tR, Wa, and (B/A)a for individual peak

shapes (at a given peak height fraction) were averaged as done

previously, thereby implicitly assuming the independence of the RSDs on

peak shape.

The RSDs for tR, Wa, and (B/A 1)a for individual peak shapes were

originally reported relative to cG', G, and (B/A 1)a, respectively.

Multiplication by aG/tR, OG/Wa, and (B/A 1)a/(B/A)a converted them to

the appropriate form.

Since the RSDs of tR, Wa, and (B/A)a were assumed to be independent

of peak shape, intuitively it might seem that this should also be true

for the RSD of any calculated CFOM. This is not the case, however. For

one group of CFOMs (Nsys, M2, aG, tG, Nmax, RSE, and M)), a slight to

moderate variation in their RSDs with (B/A)a was observed. This can be

explained by examining the random error propagation in the general

empirical Nsys equation,

Nsys = Cl(tR/Wa)2/[(B/A) + C2] (3.9)





40








Table 3.6. Suggested Chromatographic Measurement Conditions and
the Resulting Precision (%RSD) Achieved for tR, Wa, and (B/A)a

Conditions

1. Chromatogram recording rate: 1 cm/G (W0.1 Z 4.3 cm)

2. Ruler resolution: + 0.2 mm

3. Minimum retention distance, (tR)min: 10 cm

4. Minimum peak height, (hp)min: 10 cm


Resultsa,b

CFOM (a = 0.1) (a = 0.3) (a = 0.5)

tR + 0.2 identical identical

Wa + 1.0 + 1.0 1.0

(B/A)a + 2.0 + 2.5 3.0



aData obtained from reference 32 and subsequently converted (see
Detailed Discussion of Precision) for a = 0.1, 0.5--results
interpolated for a = 0.3.

bRSD(tR) rounded to nearest 0.1%; %RSDs for Wa, (B/A)a rounded
to nearest 0.25%.





41

Assuming negligible covariances, RSD(Nsys) is given by


RSD(Nsys) = {4[RSD(tR)]2 + 4[RSD(Wa)]2 +
1 2

RSD[(B/A)a]2 [(B/A)a/((B/A)a + C2)]2}1/2 (3.10)
3 4

Even when terms 1-3 in eq 3.10 are constant, RSD(Nsys) will vary

somewhat with (B/A)a because of term 4. Clearly this variation will be

greatest for -(B/A)a < C2 < 0. Additionally, as C2 -(B/A)a,

RSD(Nsys) + -. For C2 = 0, RSD(Nsys) is essentially independent of

(B/A)a. Finally, for C2 > 0, a negligible to slight variation of

RSD(Nsys) with (B/A)a may be observed, depending on the magnitude of

terms 1 and 2 relative to the product of terms 3 and 4. Except for eqs

1 and 2(a,b) in Table 3.4, the RSD limits for Nsys, M2, OG' tG, Nmax'

RSE, and M1 calculated via equations in Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 varied

by less than 0.5% for 1.00 < B/A ( 2.76.

The remaining CFOMs (T, T/GG, RPL, M3, M4,YSYE) comprise a second

group whose RSDs are moderate to strong functions of peak shape as

Figure 3.1 shows. In every instance the imprecision is largest for the

least asymmetric peaks and smallest for the most highly skewed peaks.

Analysis of the error propagation equations show that one or more terms

within the equations get very large as the peak shapes become symmetric.


Why Measure at 10% Peak Height?

For reasons listed below, the recommended CFOM equations in

Table 3.2 are based on (in addition to tR) the measurement of W and B/A

at 10% peak height rather than at other peak height fractions such as

50%, 30%, or 5%:





42


1. Examination of Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 shows that many CFOM
equations at 10% are clearly superior to the corresponding ones at 30%
and 50% in terms of
a) precision (lowest RSD limits)
b) widest working range for equivalent accuracy (e.g., Nss)
c) simplicity for M2 (path a)

2. The Nsys equation at 10% peak height is more accurate for Gaussian
and near-Gaussian peaks than other Nsys equations developed at 50%, 30%,
or 5%. For example, at B/A = 1 the relative error was +0.6%, +10.0%,
+2.0%, and +2.5%, respectively.

3. In a previously reported graphical measurement study (31,32),
statistically significant positive and negative biases were detected in
the measurement of AO 5 and B0 5, respectively, resulting in a
consistent underestimation of (B/A0 5. No such biases were detected
for A0.1 and B0.1, and only a slight underestimation was observed for
(B/A)o.1.

4. It is likely that RSD(W05) > RSD(W0 1), since in going from W .1 to
WO0W the magnitude of the slope of the peak (on either side) decreases
much more rapidly than the peak width increases. Thus the precision for
the 5% CFOM equations would be poorer [assuming RSD(W0O05) contributes
substantially to the total uncertainty].

5. Superior resolution between overlapping peaks is required for
measurements at 5% peak height than at 10%.

6. As exemplified in Figure 3.2 for N Gaussian CFOM equations based
on width measurements at 10% are much less inaccurate (though still
exceedingly in error) for asymmetric peaks than the corresponding
Gaussian equations at 50% (shown) and 30% (not shown). That is, the
slope of the RE vs. (B/A)a (shown for a = 0.1) plots is smaller; thus
the approximate RE correction function in the denominator of eqs 3.2 and
3.5 (text) will be less sensitive to the measurement imprecision of
(B/A)a).

7. The sensitivity of the relative error (RE) correction functions to
the (B/A)a measurement imprecision is only slightly lower at 5% than at
10$ peak height (see Figure 3.2) and is insufficient to warrant CFOM
estimation at 5%.

8. As seen in Table 3.7, the RSE can be calculated much more accurately
using width measurements at 10% than at 50%, 30%, or 5%. In addition,
the precision is much better (lower RSD limits) at 10% than at 50% or
30%, and is comparable to that at 5%.

9. The empirical asymmetry factor measurement, B/A, was introduced at
10% peak height rather than at 50% or 30% because peak tailing is much
more apparent at 10%. Since then almost all empirical measurements of
asymmetry have been reported at this peak height fraction; these data
will be of little value in later years if the B/A peak height fraction
is redefined.






























Figure 3.2. Relative error in plate count of three Gaussian equations (based on
the indicated peak width measurements) and the EMG-based Ns
equation (Table 3.2, eq 1) for ideal and skewed peaks.









9*Z z S91
Sv8
N ' ' -0
N 0



;O'OmN

N
o

N -0




sOO





'MN/ -00O





45








Table 3.7. Comparison of the Accuracy and Precision of the
RSE Equations at a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50


equation %RE limits % RSD


RSE = 1.04 [(B/A)0.05 -200 -5.0, +4.5 + 4.0


RSE = 0.99 [(B/A)0. -224 + 2.1 + 4.5


RSE = 0.926[(B/A)0.30]-3"11 -7.5, +2.3 8.0


RSE = 0.913[(B/A)0 r50-433 -9.0, +4.5 + 13.0





46


10. It is easier to mentally compute 10% of an arbitrary peak height
than 50%, 30%, or 5%.

Taken collectively, the above arguments indicate that the best CFOM

estimation is obtained from graphical chromatographic measurements at

10% peak height.


General Aspects

Preliminary modeling of experimental peaks. Chromatographic peaks

should be examined for their resemblance to Gaussian, EMG, or other peak

shapes, first by visual inspection and then from the asymmetry factor

measurement. In the unlikely event that B/A = 1, the validity of the

Gaussian model can be checked by comparing the measured peak width

ratios W0.5 :W0.3 W0.1 to the theoretically predicted ratios 0.5487 :

0.7231 : 1. For B/A 2 1.09, the validity of the EMG model can be judged

by the agreement of values of G', M2 and/or T, and tG determined from

both B/A and Wa measurements at a = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 (see Tables 3.2,

3.3, and 3.4).

For slightly asymmetric chromatographic peaks, the assignment of

peak shape models may be ambiguous due to the imprecise measurement of

B/A (e.g., Is a peak with B/A = 1.03 0.02 Gaussian?). Insofar as

accuracy and precision are concerned, does it matter if EMG-based

equations are used with Gaussian peaks or vice-versa? As seen from

Table 3.2, the EMG based equations for Nsys, M2, and UG are accurate to

within 1.5%, + 1.5%, and + 4%, respectively, over the asymmetry range

1.00 < B/A < 1.09. Figure 3.3 shows the accuracy of the Gaussian based

equations (a = 0.1) over this same range. Clearly, little error in the

estimation of M2, Nsys, and aG will result from peak model

misassignments at low asymmetries (1.00 < B/A < 1.09) due to B/A






























Figure 3.3. Relative error in the Gaussian standard deviation, plate count, and
second central moment for Gaussian equations based on tR, WO.1
measurements for ideal and slightly skewed peaks.







V/8
60' 1 90'1 01 001

-_*z-


-00









r-9z


O'O0





49


imprecision, though for B/A > 1.04 the EMG equations are more accurate.

Furthermore, as seen from Table 3.5, the change in the precision of CFOM

estimation resulting from peak model misassignment would be less

than 1%.

Double-checking the results. The universality of the relative

error approach (introduced in the Derivations section above) was checked

by the independent variation of tG and aG over the tG/OG range of 10 to

5000. The generality was confirmed by identical statistical results

(%RELs, etc.) over a given B/A range (e.g., 1.09 2.76) for all CFOMs

calculated from this approach.

As an additional check on the experimental work, M2 and Nsys were

calculated by statistical moment analysis (23), using the same tR search

algorithm as before. The agreement among the true, moment, and manual

values for both M2 and Nsys was within 1% for 1.00 < B/A < 2.05 with

very little bias present in either approximation. At higher asymmetries

(2.05 < B/A < 2.76), the manual values remained within + 1.5% of the

true values, but the corresponding moment values showed a significant

positive bias ranging from +1.5% to +5.5%. An even greater bias of

+4.4$ at B/A = 2.05 (T/aG = 2) reported elsewhere (23) was attributed to

arbitrary data truncation. This was probably the source of bias in our

statistical moment method as well, but regardless of the source of bias

the same conclusion may be drawn: at high asymmetries (2.05 < B/A <

2.76) the manual CFOM equation method is more accurate than the moment

method.

Working range of the equations. The EMG-based equations in

Table 3.2 were expected to be accurate over the asymmetry range used for

the least squares curve-fitting of the f(B/A) approximations. Thus,





50


except for eq 8, the accurate working range was thought to be 1.09 < B/A

< 2.76. Nevertheless, eqs 1, 2(a,b), 6, 7, and 10 allow accurate

estimation of Nss, M2, tG, Nmax, and M1, respectively, for Gaussian

shaped peaks (B/A = 1.00). Although somewhat surprising, this is

explained by the near convergence of these EMG equations to Gaussian

ones when the substitution B/A = 1.00 is made in the former. The N
sys
equation in Table 3.2, for example, becomes


Nsys =18.53(tR/W.1)2 (3.11)


which is within +0.6% of the Gaussian formula


NW0.1 = 18.42(tR/W0.1)2 (3.12)



CFOM equations could have been developed for asymmetries greater

than B/A = 2.76 (T/cG = 3), but a sacrifice of simplicity, accuracy, or

both would have been required. More importantly, however, it was felt

that nearly all peaks reported in the literature exhibit B/A's < 2.76.

Indeed, a chromatographic system producing peaks with B/A's > 2.76 is

operating at a relative system efficiency of less than 10%.

When the EMG Nsys equation was tested for asymmetries higher than

those for which it was developed, the %RE varied between -1.5% and -10%

for 2.77 < B/A < 4.00, compared to the %RE range of +70%, +110% for the

Gaussian 10% equation (N 0.1
0.1

Real versus ideal CFOMs; column characterization. Given that peak

asymmetry is (almost) always present in any real chromatographic system,

Nsys, M2, and tR represent the experimentally observed chromatographic

efficiency, peak variance, and retention time, respectively. The





51


corresponding CFOMs Nmax, G2, and tG represent idealized

chromatographic parameters which would describe the system if all

sources of asymmetry could be eliminated. If all or nearly all

asymmetry is extra-column in origin, then for a given set of conditions

Nmax, aG2, and tG are valid descriptors of the efficiency, band-

broadening, and retention characteristics of the column.

Pluralism of the method. As might be surmised from Table 3.2,

there is more than one way to calculate several of the CFOMs. The

variance, for example can be calculated via eq 2a from measurements of

0.1 and B/A or via eq 2b from tR and Nsys (eq 1). Generally, CFOM

estimates via the "b" equations are simpler, faster, equally precise,

but less accurate than estimates via the "a" equations. This trade-off

of accuracy for simplicity and speed is slight, however; in most cases

much time can be saved with little sacrifice in accuracy if the "b"

equations are employed.

Only the simplest and most accurate methods are given in Table 3.2.

Therefore, while Nsys could be calculated from its components tR, CG'

and T (see Nsys equation in Table 3.1), this method was not reported

since it would be much more time-consuming, tedious, and in all

likelihood less accurate and less precise than the Nsys equation in

Table 3.2.

Usefulness of RSE, RPL. The relative system efficiency (RSE) and

relative plate loss (RPL), two new parameters defined in Table 3.1, are

dualistic CFOMs. First, they can be interpreted intuitively as

sys/Nmax and (Nmax Nsys)/Nmax respectively, with a corrective

retention factor (tG/tR)2 applied. Alternatively, RSE and RPL can be

viewed as the relative contributions of symmetrical ( a2) and





52


asymmetrical (T2) band-broadening processes to the total system band-

broadening (M2, the total variance). If (t/tR)2 can be neglected

because of its nearness to unity, the former intuitive expressions for

RSE and RPL become particularly useful. For example, the best possible

efficiency, Nmax, can be related very simply to the true chromatographic

efficiency, Nys, by

Nmax = Nys/RSE (3.13)


In fact, this approximation is good to within + 2% with an RSD limit of

5% (for 1.00 < B/A < 2.76) whenever Nmax (calculated via eq 3.13) >

4000. Thus, eq 3.13 can serve as a useful estimation of Nmax for

moderate to high efficiency chromatographic systems.

Although B/A, RSE, and RPL are mutually interdependent (i.e., once

B/A has been measured RSE and RPL may be calculated), the specification

of RSE, RPL, or both in addition to the reporting of B/A greatly

enhances the qualitative description of a chromatographic system. Thus,

while B/A = 1.30 indicates that a given peak is asymmetric, the

corresponding RSE = 55% or RPL = 45% provides a clearer indication of

the actual efficiency and how much room for improvement exists.

Figure 3.4 shows the exponential-like relationship of RSE and RPL

with B/A. Chromatographic systems with asymmetries of 1.00 and 1.10 are

operating at much different relative efficiencies, while two systems

operating at B/A = 2.00 and 2.10 are realizing nearly the same relative

efficiencies.

Alternative derivations. Two other approaches for deriving CFOM

equations were not as successful as that already described. In the

first attempt, a modification of the Carr graphical method, three

universal calibration curves were approximated by linear or quadratic




53









100

RPL


75

I--
z
uJ
0 50
L.


25


RSE

0
I a I I i I a II
I 1.5 2 2.5

B/A


Figure 3.4. Relative system efficiency, RSE, and relative plate loss,
RPL, for ideal and skewed peaks.





54


polynomials. This approach yielded equations for aG, T tG, and the

remaining CFOMs in terms of W0.1, B/A, and tR, but was unsatisfactory

for three reasons: a) an accurate but simple approximation of T/CG in

terms of B/A cannot be obtained for the range 1.00 < B/A < 2.76 because

the relationship between them changes at B/A = 1.36 from a decidedly

nonlinear one to an almost perfectly linear one; b) the errors

introduced by the polynomial approximations tend to accumulate slightly

rather than cancel; and c) the equations derived for all the CFOMs

except T, OG, and tG are extremely unwieldly, e.g., eq 3.14 below,


Nsys = (tR/W0.1)2[g(B/A)/h(B/A)] (3.14)

where g and h are second degree polynomials of B/A. A variation of this

same approach in which B/A was substituted for the original abscissa

T/UG in the latter two calibration curves made little difference.

A second attempt, a variation of the relative error (RE) approach

utilizing (B A) as the approximation G in eq 3.5 for T, failed

because the simplest f(B/A) approximation required for sufficient

accuracy was too complex.

CFOM units. For ease of interlaboratory comparison, all non-

unitless CFOMs should be reported in time units; if units of length are

chosen instead, the recorder chart speed should be specified to permit

conversion to time units.





55


Conclusion

Superiority of EMG-based EQuations. Although Gaussian-based

equations are somewhat simpler than their EMG counterparts in Table 3.2

(compare eq 3.11, text with eq 1, Table 3.2), the EMG equations are

clearly superior because with comparable precision (see Table 3.5) they

are equally accurate for Gaussian (or near-Gaussian) peaks and

considerably more accurate for skewed (EMG) chromatographic peaks.














CHAPTER 4
CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMIT OF DETECTION IN CHROMATOGRAPHY




Introduction

In this chapter, the focus is on eliminating the confusion

surrounding the limit of detection (LOD) in chromatography. Some prior

knowledge of the LOD concept is assumed. This discussion primarily

applies to both gas and liquid chromatography using concentration or

mass sensitive detectors whose output is measured as peak height, though

two sections (Eliminating Mistaken Identities and Using the Correct Units)

apply to analyses using peak area as well. Ideal linear elution, i.e.,

Gaussian peak profiles, is assumed though moderate deviations can be

tolerated.


Identifying Current Problems

Literature Survey Results

Initially, to determine the sources of discrepancy in

chromatographic detection limits, we conducted a limited survey of

analytical textbooks, chromatographic monographs, and the primary

chromatographic literature. This survey revealed two mistakes of

omission, as well as four major sources of discrepancies. All six are

summarized in Table 4.1. The first two problems are blatant omissions

which discredit the work reported, at least to some degree. However,

they can be eliminated if more attention is given during manuscript

preparation, and thus may be dismissed without further discussion. The

56















Table 4.1. Problems with the limit of detection (LOD) concept in chromatograpy

mistakes of omission

1. Detection limits were not reported, though trace analysis was stressed.

2. Detection limits were reported, but no definition for the LOD was given.

sources of discrepancies

3. The LOD concept was confused with other concepts used in trace analysis.

4. Arbitrary LOD models were used with little or no justification.

5. Detection limits were reported in units of concentration rather than amount.

6. The effects that several chromatographic parameters have on the LOD were
unaccounted for.





58



remaining four problems (3-6 in Table 4.1) comprise the major sources of

discrepancy in chromatographic detection limits, and are the topics to

be addressed in this report.


Numerical Example

Before proceeding, however, a numerical example which incorporates

problems 4-6 (see Table 4.1) will be given. This example will

demonstrate to the reader the magnitude of these problems and will

facilitate later discussion. Though designed with liquid chromatography

in mind, the points made by this example apply equally well to gas

chromatography.

The initial assumptions, experimental conditions, and results of

this example are shown in Table 4.2. To avoid the confusion which it

would certainly have caused, problem #3 of Table 4.1 was not

incorporated into this example. If it had been, the results might have

been even more shocking. Nevertheless, as seen in the bottom row of

Table 4.2, the LODs for the two systems employing identical detectors

differ by three and one-half orders of magnitude!

Though a detailed explanation of this example is beyond the scope

of the present discussion, the huge discrepancy in the two LODs will be

reconciled after the last three problems in Table 4.2 are solved. This

example should awaken the reader to the seriousness of these problems

and demonstrate why they must be eliminated if the chromatographic LOD

is to be a meaningful figure of merit.





59








Table 4.2. Example of widely differing detection limits

Assumptions

1. Liquid chromatograph with UV absorbance detector

2. Beer's Law applies, i.e., A = ebc.

3. Analytical sensitivity, S = eb = 10,000 AU L mol"-

4. Peak to peak noise, Np = 2 x 10-5 AU

5. Root mean square noise, Nrms = 1/5 Npp


Variables Experiment A Experiment,B

Vinj 5 uL 20 uL

LOD defn 10 Npp/S 3 Nrms/S


VM(mL) 2.5 0.5

k 10 3

N (plates) 1000 10,000

Results

LODs reported 8.7 x 10-6 M 3.0 x 10-9 M

log (LODA/LODB) = 3.5 orders of magnitude difference!





60


Solving the Problems

Eliminating Mistaken Identities

The limit of detection has unfortunately been confused with three

other concepts--particularly the (minimum) detectability--which are also

used in characterizing chromatographic trace analyses. Table 4.3

includes symbols and definitions for all four of these concepts.

One reason that the LOD is confused with the other concepts in

Table 4.3, particularly the MD, is the redundancy in nomenclature of the

detection limit and the MD, as evidenced by the partial, but

representative list of (apparent) synonyms for these concepts (shown in

Table 4.3) which appear frequently in the literature. In general,

redundant terminology in science only serves to confuse. This is

especially true when the apparent synonyms for different concepts are

themselves quite similar. The use of these apparent synonyms should be

discontinued immediately.

Even if the confusion resulting from the redundant terminology

could be eliminated, the LOD might still be confused with the MD by the

apprentice chromatographer because their definitions, as shown in

Table 4.3 and in eqs 4.1 and 4.2, are so similar in appearance (cf.

meaning, however).


LOD = arbitrary detector signal level/S (4.1)

MD = arbitrary detector signal level/Sd (4.2)


Yet despite their similarities, the LOD and MD are distinct

concepts, as a closer scrutiny of Table 4.3 shows. The LOD is a general

concept characterizing any overall trace analytical procedure consisting

of one or more steps, whereas the MD is a specific term characterizing















Table 4.3. Trace analysis concepts in chromatography

1. limit of detection (LOD) smallest concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected
or detection limit with reasonable certainty for a given analytical procedure

apparent synonyms minimum absolute quantity, minimum detectable amount, sensitivity

2. (analytical) sensitivity slope of the calibration curve signal output per unit
(S) concentration or amount of analyte introduced in a given
analytical procedure


terms specific to chromatography

3. (minimum) detectability minimum concentration or mass flux of analyte passing through a
(MD) detector in unit time that can be discerned from the noise with
reasonable certainty

apparent synonymsa minimum detectable level, minimum detectable concentration

4. detector sensitivity (Sd) slope of the detector response curve signal output per unit
concentration (or per unit amount/unit time) of analyte passing
through a detector


aThe use of these apparent synonyms should be discontinued immediately.





62


one step in a chromatographic analysis: detection. For example, the

LOD must, by definition, include the chromatographic dilution of the

analyte, whereas the MD cannot. Furthermore, the LOD is measured

experimentally with a complete chromatographic system (including the

column) under the specific conditions of a given trace analysis; the MD,

in contrast, is measured without a column under conditions that may or

may not correspond to those of the analysis.

The two concepts may also be distinguished mathematically.

Assuming an analytical signal in terms of peak height, the relationship

for a concentration sensitive chromatographic system is (36)


LOD = (2)1/2 [VM(+k)/N1/2] b MD (4.3)


where VM represents the corrected gas holdup volume in GC and the column

void volume in LC; k is the capacity factor; N is the number of

theoretical plates; and b is a unitless parameter which permits the LOD

and the MD to be defined independently of one another. For a mass

sensitive chromatographic system, the relationship between the LOD and

the MD is (37)

LOD (2w)1/2 [tM(1+k)/N1/2] b MD (4.4)


where tM is the retention time of an unretained solute, corrected for

gas compressibility in GC.

One final difference should be noted: An arbitrary detector signal

level of twice the peak-to-peak detector noise has been universally

agreed upon for MD calculations (in practice, at least). No such

consensus exists for the LOD.





63

Choosing a Model

As discussed earlier, the LOD may be defined in terms of an

arbitrary signal-to-noise (S/N) level. In our survey of the

chromatographic trace analysis literature, we found a multitude of

arbitrary S/N levels used, ranging from 2 to 10. To further complicate

matters, neither the measures of the signal (peak height, peak area,

etc.) nor the noise (peak-to-peak, root mean square, etc.) were

specified in many instances.

These inconsistencies and ambiguities are not surprising since (to

our knowledge) no standard model for the LOD has ever been proposed,

much less adopted, by any recognized organization for the field of

chromatography! We note specifically the omission of an LOD definition

in chromatography by the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) and by IUPAC in their respective publications on gas and/or

liquid chromatography nomenclature (38-41). The omission by these and

other organizations is also substantiated in two reviews (42,43).

More importantly, however, the above inconsistencies and

ambiguities can be eliminated completely if a clearly stated LOD model

is adopted. Therefore the adoption of, with minor reinterpretation, the

IUPAC model for spectrochemical analysis (44) or a model based on first

order error propagation (10) is proposed. These models are given in

eqs 4.5a and 4.5b, respectively,


LOD = 3sB/S (4.5a)


(The model which the International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted in 1975 (44) was chosen specifically
for spectrochemical analysis. Though the ACS Subcommittee on
Environmental Chemistry reaffirmed this model in 1980 (45),
it did so for the area of environmental chemistry and not
specifically for the field of chromatography.)





64



LOD = 3[sB2 + si2 + (i/S)2ss2]1/2/S (4.5b)


where S, i, sS, and si are the analytical sensitivity (slope),

intercept, and their respective standard deviations of the calibration

curve obtained via linear regression; and sB is the standard deviation,

calculated from 20 or more measurements of the blank signal.

The factor of 3 in the numerator of the right hand expressions of

eqs 4.5a and 4.5b gives a practical confidence level of 90% to 99.7%,

depending on the probability distribution of the blank signal and the

accuracy of sB (10,44,46). Though smaller or larger factors could be

used instead of 3, the resulting confidence levels would be too low or

too high for practical use in most cases. Both the original proponents

of these models (10,44) and others (46) strongly recommend the use of

the factor 3. This author concurs.

Both models are proposed for adoption because it seems preferable

to let the chromatography community judge their respective merits.

Indeed, strong arguments can be made for each. The IUPAC model, on the

one hand, is computationally simpler and has already been employed,

though infrequently, in the chromatographic literature. On the other

hand, the error propagation model is not really all that complicated;

many pocket calculators with linear regression capability can be easily

programmed for the error propagation model. Furthermore, the error

propagation LOD model takes uncertainties of the slope and intercept of

the calibration curve into account, resulting in a more realistic

numerical estimate.

Interpretation. The IUPAC and error propagation LOD models were

developed originally for spectroscopic trace analysis. Nearly all the





65


associated concepts, [e.g., the calibration curve, the sample (analyte +

matrix), etc.] have identical, straightforward interpretations in

chromatography. One aspect, however, does not: the measurement of sB'

Intuitively it is clear that the chromatographic baseline is

somehow analogous to the blank signal in spectroscopy. We can now refer

to sg as the standard deviation of the chromatographic baseline (noise).

The measurement of sB remains unclear, however.

One possible procedure would be to estimate sB from 20 or more

measurements of only that portion of the baseline observed at the

analyte's retention time in the absence of the analyte (when a blank

solution is injected). This is directly analogous to the measurement of

the blank signal (at the analytical wavelength) in spectroscopy. Such a

literal procedure would require at least 20 injections of blank solution

(20 blank chromatograms!) and is obviously too impractical:

1. It would be much too time consuming!
2. It may require too much blank solution.
3. Variables which affect retention would require strict control.
4. The retention time of the analyte would need to be known very
precisely.

A much more practical procedure becomes apparent if one remembers

that the standard deviation (root mean square) of a random (periodic)

signal can be closely approximated by the quotient of the range (peak-

to-peak displacement) and a parameter, p, dependent on the type of

signal, i.e.,

asignal = range/p (4.6a)

For the measurement of sB, it should be noted that the range is

equivalent to the peak-to-peak noise of the baseline, Np_p, if the

latter is measured over a sufficiently wide region of the chromatogram

which includes the analyte peak. Additionally, the baseline usually





66


results from a normally distributed, random signal for which p = 5.

Thus in most cases the standard deviation of the chromatographic

baseline, SB, can be estimated from one-fifth of the peak-to-peak noise,

i.e.,

sB = Npp/5 (4.6b)


Two additional comments regarding the practical procedure for

measuring sB should be noted:

1. It is recommended that the "sufficiently wide region of the
chromatogram" be at least as wide as 20 base widths of the analyte peak.

2. If systematic fluctuations in the baseline are present, a value (of
p) less than 5 should be used in eq 4.6b. If, for example, a periodic
triangular baseline (possibly resulting from flow pulsations in the
detector cell due to an insufficiently dampened solvent delivery system)
is observed, then p = 3.5 and sB = N P_/3.5.


Using the Correct Units

A common misconception about chromatographic LODs is that they can

be reported in units of concentration rather than amount. The fallacy

of this assumption will be shown below.

Dimensional analysis. One way of deducing the correct units of the

chromatographic LOD is by dimensional analysis. Referring to the

definition of the MD in Table 4.2, it is clear that if the appropriate

units of concentration and mass flux are used for the MD in eqs 4.3 and

4.4 for the concentration sensitive and mass sensitive detector cases,

respectively, the units for the LOD in eqs 4.3 and 4.4 must be in terms

of an amount (e.g., moles, grams, or some multiple thereof).

Another approach via dimensional analysis is to consider the right

hand expression of eq 4.1. Given the definition for the analytical

sensitivity, it is clear that the units for this term (denominator of





67


eq 4.1) should be the quotient of the units of the measured signal and

the units of the independent variable. Therefore, since the units for

the noise expression (numerator of eq 4.1) are the same as those for the

measured signal, the units for the detection limit should be the same as

the units of the independent variable of the calibration curve. Thus,

to decide which units are correct for the LOD, we need only to identify

the units of the independent variable of the calibration curve, i.e., to

determine whether the chromatographic signal depends on the

concentration or amount of analyte injected.

Equations 4.7 and 4.8 (36,37) below show that the signal (peak

height, hp) is directly proportional to the maximum concentration,

Cmax,det' or the maximum flux, Fmax,det, of the chromatographic peak

flowing through the detector, which in turn are directly proportional to

the amount of analyte injected.

/2 ( '1/2
hp Cmax,det = inj N1/2 )1/ (4.7)


h Fmax,det inj N1/2 (r)1/2/tR (4.8)


Thus the same conclusion is reached once again: The chromatographic LOD

must be given in units of amount, i.e., in moles, grams, or some

fraction thereof.

Identifying faulty logic. Despite these convincing arguments, some

researchers insist on reporting their chromatographic LODs in

concentration units. Their rationale might be as follows:

1. The amount of analyte injected, qinj, is the product of the
concentration of analyte in the sample, Cinj, and the volume of sample
injected, Vinj.
inj = Cinj Vinj (4.9)





68

2. From eq 4.9 it is clear that the concentration of analyte injected,
Cinj, is directly proportional to the amount of analyte injected.

Cinj = injinj (4.10)

3. Therefore the relative LOD (in units of concentration), CL, is
proportional to the true, absolute LOD, qL (in units of amount).

CL = /Vinj (4.11)


Though reached in a straightforward manner, the conclusion stated

above is nevertheless false. The error in reasoning is best described

as an improper or incomplete analogy. In going from a true expression,

eq 4.10, to a false statement, eq 4.11, Cinj and qinj were replaced by

two limiting quantities CL and qL, respectively. No analogous

substitution was made for Vinj, however, and therein lies the error.

Vinj may vary continuously over 0 < Vinj < Vinj,max where Vinj,max is

some limiting, maximum injection volume to be discussed momentarily.

Unless Vinj Vinj,max eq 4.11 is false.


A numerical example will help demonstrate the absurdity of eq 4.11.

Suppose the true, absolute LOD (qL) for analyte X had been determined

independently by two scientists using the same LC system to be 1 x 10-12

mol. If the scientists had used different injection volumes of 5 uL and

50 uL, according to eq 4.11 the relative LODs (CL's) for the same

chromatographic system would be 2 x 10-6M and 2 x 10-7M, respectively.

Clearly eq 4.11 is inappropriate.

The correct expression, eq 4.12 below, is obtained by using

Vinj,max in place of Vinj. But this expression is of little value

because of the difficulty in obtaining a consistent, precise estimate of

inj,max'

CL = qL/Vinj,max (4.12)





69



Problems with estimating the maximum injection volume. Experimen-

tally, Vinj,max can be determined by increasing Vinj until column over-

loading or some other adverse phenomenon is observed. This operational

definition of Vinj,max is unsatisfactory, however, because the injection

volume at which these events occur is too dependent on the experimental

conditions, e.g., the sample matrix, the percent loading of the column.

Alternatively, numerous theoretical expressions are available for

the estimation of Vinj,max. Though many are overly specific, a few are

completely general. Perhaps the best is one which relates Vinj,max to
inj,max
the maximum tolerable degradation in resolution (5, p. 289). Our

extension of this expression is reported below as eq 4.13, and is

derived in Appendix C.


in,max 2(3)1/2 (y2 + 2y)1/2 VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (4.13a)


where y = the maximum tolerable loss in resolution due to a finite

injection volume.

Another expression based on the same criterion (maximum tolerable

loss in resolution) but derived from slightly different assumptions (36)

is shown in eq 4.13b

Vinj,max = (2K) y VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (4.13b)


where K is a parameter characteristic of the method of injection;

practical values of K range from 2 to 3.5 (ideal plug injection).

Comparison of eqs 4.13a and 4.13b reveals one of the problems with

theoretical estimates of Vinj,max: due to their extreme dependency on

the criterion selected and/or the assumptions of the derivation,

theoretical estimates of Vinj,max are extremely inconsistent.






70


Another problem with these and other general expressions is that

Vinj,max is highly dependent on the value of some arbitrary parameter,

y in this example (eqs 4.13a and 4.13b). If y = 0.04 (4% loss in

resolution), eq 4.13a becomes

Vinj,max V( + k)/N1/2 (4.14)


If y were chosen to be 0.01 or 0.10, then Vinj,max would be equal to

approximately half or one and one-half times the value predicted by

eq 4.14. Since universal agreement on the value of y or some other

parameter is unlikely, the theoretical methods for estimating Vinj,max

will continue to be imprecise.

Summary. For all the reasons discussed above, chromatographic LODs

should always be reported in units of amount, not concentration.


Converting to ChromatograDhic Reference Conditions

As seen from eqs 4.3 and 4.4, the LOD depends not only on the

detector characteristics (MD) but also on three chromatographic

parameters [k, N, and VM (or tM)] which characterize the column and the

solute. In this section a method is proposed for taking the effects of

these parameters into account, thereby solving the final problem

associated with the chromatographic LOD (see Table 4.1). Gaussian

elution profiles are assumed, though slight to moderate deviations can

be tolerated.

For a concentration sensitive detector, the relationship between

the LOD and the chromatographic parameters is given by


qL = d VM(1+k)/N1/2 (4.15)


where terms of eq 4.3 [(2r)1/2, b, MD] have been incorporated into a






71

single proportionality constant, d. Alternatively, since VR = VM(1 + k)

and N = (VR/oi)2, we may write


qL = d VR/N1/2 (4.16)

or qL = d Vy (4.17)


where VR is the retention volume (corrected for compressibility in GC)

and av is the bandwidth of the chromatographic peak, in volume units.

Equations 4.15-4.17 are equivalent, and any one of them may be used

to derive an expression which accounts for the effects of these

chromatographic parameters on the LOD. For simplicity, we use eq 4.17.

Consider a LOD, qL1, obtained under one set of chromatographic

conditions, i.e., cv = CVy. By analogy with eq 4.17,


qL1 = davi (4.18)

Likewise, for a LOD, qL2, obtained under a second set of chromatographic

conditions,
qL2 = dV2 (4.19)

Dividing eq 4.19 by eq 4.18 and solving for qL2 yields


qL2 = [LV2/VI] qL1 (4.20a)

which can also be written as


qL2 =[VR2/VR1 [N1/N2]1/2 qL1 (4.20b)

or qL2 = [VM2/VM [(k2 + 1)/(ki + 1)] [N1/N2]1/2 qL1 (4.20c)


Equations 4.20a-4.20c are important for two reasons: First, they

can be used to predict the change in the detection limit when switching





72



from one set of chromatographic conditions to another. Thus they are

useful to the analyst interested in lowering the detection limits via

improvements in the chromatographic (rather than the detection) aspects

of the trace analysis. It should be noted, however, that the detection

limits cannot be lowered infinitely by such improvements. Eventually

the analysis will be optimized to the point where further improvements

in the chromatographic aspects will necessitate a reduction in sample

volume which offsets the chromatographic improvements (36). Of course,

in situations where very little sample is available, this reduction in

sample size while maintaining a constant detection limit will be

helpful.

Second, eqs 4.20a-4.20c can be used to compare detection limits

obtained under different chromatographic conditions (bandwidths).

Consider two such detection limits obtained using different

concentration sensitive detectors. These detection limits can be

compared only after one of the two detection limits is converted from

its present value obtained under a certain chromatographic bandwidth

(set of conditions) to a value corresponding to the bandwidth of the

other LOD, or after both LODs are converted to values corresponding to a

third bandwidth. Note that the latter would require an additional

conversion.

Whichever way is chosen, it should be recognized that the final

bandwidth (set of chromatographic conditions) chosen in the LOD

conversion procedure serves as a reference state and that the initial

bandwidth(s) is(are) by definition experimental states. Thus from

eq 4.20a we may write

qL,ref = [V,ref/V,exp] L,exp (4.21)





73



where the subscripts "ref" and "exp" refer to reference and

experimental, respectively. Similar equations resulting from the

incorporation of this notation into eqs 4.20b and 4.20c are easily

inferred.

The above derivation can be repeated in an analogous fashion for

the case of mass sensitive detectors. The result is

qL,ref = [t,ref/t,exp3 qL,exp (4.22)


where at is the bandwidth of the peak in time units.

Given eqs 4.21 and 4.22, the analyst now has a method for comparing

detection limits obtained under different chromatographic conditions

(states). Given two or more LODs measured under different

chromatographic states, the analyst merely converts all of them to

values corresponding to a single, arbitrary, reference state.

Though the choice of the reference state is arbitrary, the

selection of the reference state is nevertheless important. For

example, it would be counterproductive for an analyst to employ a

different chromatographic reference state each time a new group of

experimental LODs (measured under different experimental states) were to

be compared, since LODs in separate groups could not be compared if this

was done. For similar reasons, it would also be counterproductive if

each analyst or group of analysts used different reference states.

On the other hand, the reference states by definition must be

different for concentration sensitive and mass sensitive chromatographic

systems. And in addition, typical chromatographic states (bandwidths)

vary considerably in liquid chromatography (LC), packed column gas

chromatography (PGC), and open tubular gas chromatography (OTGC).





74


The logical compromise which is proposed is a fixed reference state

(bandwidth) to be used exclusively for each of the three chromatographic

areas (LC, PGC, and OTGC) in each of the two detector categories

[concentration sensitive (eq 4.20) or mass sensitive (eq 4.21)], giving

a total of six fixed references states. Furthermore, it is proposed

that the LODs resulting from the conversion to these fixed reference

states be referred to as standardized chromatographic LODs. To

emphasize this, eqs 4.21 and 4.22 may be rewritten as


qL,std = [V,ref/V,exp3 qL,exp (4.23)

and qL,std = [t,ref/t,exp] qL,exp (4.24)


respectively, where the standardized LODs are indicated by the subscript

"std".

Advantages of the chromatographic reference state concept and the

resulting standardized chromatographic LODs If the values for the

reference states are chosen judiciously, the resulting standardized LODs

will be superior to experimental (hereafter termed conventional) LODs in

several ways:

First, standardized LODs generally represent a more realistic

measure of the trace analysis capabilities of a given chromatographic

system, thus permitting an analyst to decide whether or not a particular

application reported in the literature will be feasible with his or her

system. Conventional LODs, on the other hand, may be very misleading.

As evidenced in the literature, many trace analyses have been performed

using chromatographic systems which have only been partially optimized,

if at all. As a result, unusually pessimistic (very high) LODs are

obtained. In contrast, some overly optimistic (very low) LODs have been





75



reported in some instances where the particular chromatographic systems

have been optimized more than the typical system could have been.

Second, the use of standardized LODs permits a fair comparison of

trace analysis chromatographic systems in different areas, e.g., OTGC

vs. LC, or with different types of detectors (mass vs. concentration

sensitive). Such a comparison is not valid if conventional LODs are

used, even within a given area using the same type of detector.

Third, the standardized LOD facilitates the prediction of the value

of the LOD under experimental chromatographic conditions. Rearranging

eqs 4.23 and 4.24, one obtains

qL,exp = [V,exp/OV,ref qL,std (4.25)

and qL,exp = [t,exp/Ut,ref3 qL,std (4.26)


Assuming qL,std has been reported, one merely needs to substitute values

for oV,exp(or "t,exp) in eq 4.25 or 4.26 in order to calculate qL,exp.


Fourth, the standardized LOD can serve not only as a figure of

merit for the overall chromatographic analysis, but as a figure of merit

for the detector as well. The need for the minimum detectability (MD)

as a separate parameter (and hence, the need for a detector calibration

curve) would therefore be eliminated, resulting in a considerable

savings of time.

Numerically defining the reference states. Values for the proposed

chromatographic reference states (bandwidths) were determined by

assigning values to the component parameters [VM (or tM), k and N] and

then calculating the reference bandwidths using eq 4.27 or 4.28:


aV,ref = VM,ref( + kref ref)1/2 (4.27)





76



rt,ref tM,ref(1 + kref)/(Nref)1/2 (4.28)


The reference values for the individual parameters were selected in

accordance with one or more of the following criteria:

1. The value represents an intermediate chromatographic performance
which is easily achieved except under unusual circumstances.

2. The value falls within a range of values reported directly in the
scientific and trade literature.

3. The value falls within a range of values calculated from column
manufacturer specifications.

4. The value falls within a previously recommended range [k only--see
ref 12, p. 67].

The values selected for the chromatographic bandwidth component

parameters are given in Table 4.4. The resulting reference states and

corresponding standardized LOD equations are shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 and the advantages enumerated earlier conveniently

summarize the bulk of the material presented in this section. Only one

additional point needs to be made: non-standard (experimental)

bandwidths are best measured directly using equations such as


aG = Wb/4 (4.29)


or G = W0.1/4.292 (4.30)


where Wb and WO.1 represent the base width and the width at 10% peak

height, in units of volume or time, whichever is appropriate.

Alternatively, the bandwidths can be calculated from their component

parameters, but this is disadvantageous in two respects. First, it

requires at least two measurements instead of one. Second, different

expressions and/or different interpretations are required for gradient

(temperature or mobile phase) elution conditions.





77








Table 4.4. Proposed values for the component parameters
of the chromatographic reference states


parameter LC PGC OTGC


kref


Nref 10,000 10,000 62,500


VM,ref(mL) 1 3 2


tM,ref(min.) 1 0.3 1.3





78








Table 4.5. Proposed standardized LOD equations and
the corresponding chromatographic reference states


L,std = [aV,ref/OV,exp] qL,exp concentration
sensitive detector


L,std = [at,ref/ct,exp qL,exp mass sensitive
detector


LC PGC OTGC

aV,ref(mL) 0.05 0.15 0.04

at,ref(min.) 0.05 0.015 0.026





79



The Numerical Example Revisited

We return to our hypothetical LOD example (Table 4.2 and associated

text) to reconcile the large differences in the reported detection

limits. Recall that since identical chromatographic detectors were

employed, the huge discrepancies were attributed solely to problems 4-6

of Table 4.1. By eliminating these problems one at a time, obtaining

identical detection limits at the conclusion, this claim will now be

proven.

The reconciliation is summarized in Table 4.6, though readers who

wish to perform the calculations will need to refer to conditions

specified in Table 4.2.

The progress of the LOD reconciliation may be noted by inspecting

either the LOD values themselves in the second and third columns, or

their ratio given in the fourth column, in orders of magnitude. The

degrees to which the given problems are responsible for the initial

discrepancy between the LODs are shown in the fifth column; they are

obtained by subtracting successive values in the adjacent column.

Three steps were performed in the reconciliation. First, the LOD

values reported incorrectly in units of concentration (mol L-) are

converted to the appropriate units of amount (mol) by multiplying by the

corresponding sample injection volumes (Vinj's). Second, these unit-

corrected LODs are then converted to values consistent with the IUPAC

model previously discussed (qL = 3 SB/S). For case A, since Np_p = 5sB

(as discussed earlier in Choosing a Model), the LOD must be reduced by a

factor of 50/3. For case B, since Nrms = sE, no adjustment is

necessary. Finally, the IUPAC consistent LOD values are converted to





80








Table 4.6. Reconciling the differences in the detection limits
from the numerical example in Table 4.2


Step LODA LODB log (LOD A log



0. Initial 8.7 x 10-6 M 3.0 x 10-9 M 3.5
0.6
1. Amount 44 pmol 60 fmol 2.9
1.3
2. IUPAC def'n 2.6 pmol 60 fmol 1.6
1.6

3. qL,std 150 fmol 150 fmol 0.0





81


standardized LODs, thereby adjusting for differences in the

experimental chromatographic conditions (bandwidths, or states).

As seen in Table 4.6, the discrepancy between the LODs is reduced

significantly with every successive stage. It should be noted that the

largest source of discrepancy is due to differences in the experimental

chromatographic conditions (bandwidths). This demonstrates the need for

a standardized chromatographic limit of detection. Finally, the LODs in

the bottom row of Table 4.6 are identical, indicating that the

reconciliation has been completely successful.


Conclusion

Meaningful chromatographic detection limits can be obtained only if

careful attention is paid to the application of the principles which

have been discussed:

1. The limit of detection (LOD) should not be confused with the
(analytical) sensitivity (S), the minimum detectability (MD), or the
detector sensitivity (Sd).

2. The experimentally observed LODs should be calculated using the IUPAC
and/or the error propagation model(s). The calibration curve should be
constructed from a plot of signal versus amount (not concentration!) of
analyte injected, thus insuring that the resulting LODs will be in units
of amount (not concentration!).

3. If obtained under non-standard conditions, the detection limits can
be standardized using the equations in Table 4.5. Standardized
chromatographic LODs are superior to their conventional (non-
standardized) counterparts for several reasons, in particular because
they permit the (valid) comparison of trace analysis chromatographic
systems in different areas (LC, PGC, and OTGC) and/or with different
types of detectors (mass and concentration sensitive).














CHAPTER 5
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK



The results of this work should facilitate and encourage the study

of a number of related and unrelated topics. A few examples are given

below.

With regard to the standardized chromatographic LOD concept

introduced in Chapter 4, if open tubular liquid chromatograpy ever comes

of age, it will be desirable to extend the LOD concept to this area by

defining two additional reference states (bandwidths).

The successful generation of the exponentially modified Gaussian

(EMG) function by microcomputer and subsequent measurement of the

associated universal data should encourage others to use this realistic

model in related or unrelated modeling studies. One project which has

already been suggested by Kirkland et al. (23) is the development of a

chromatographic resolution function (equation) which is applicable to

skewed peaks as well as to ideal ones.

The equations recommended in Chapter 3 for the characterization of

skewed (EMG) and Gaussian peaks could be tested on analomous peaks

resulting from column overloading, nonlinear distribution isotherms, and

other sources of analomous peak distortion.

Since the graphical deconvolution of the symmetric (aG2) and

asymmetric (r2) sources of band broadening is now possible via eqs 3 and

4 in Table 3.2, the next step would be the development of methods for

measuring the individual components of G2 and T2

82





83



And finally, the relative error (RE) approach used so successfully

in the derivation of the equations in Chapter 3 is completely general

and should be considered by other scientists for any semi-empirical

modeling in their fields.














APPENDIX A--DISCUSSION AND LISTING OF THE BASIC PROGRAM, EMG-U



EMG-U, the BASIC program which evaluates the EMG function and

obtains the universal data, is listed below. In addition to the

documentation supplied within the program itself and the flowcharts

given in Fig 2.1, the following should be noted:

1. By letting S = UG/T and Y = (t-tG)/aG, eq 2.4 can be written as


hEMG(t) = [AS(27)1/2] exp(S2/2 SY) exp(-y2/2)dy/(2T)1/2 (A.1)


where z = Y S. (A.2)

2. To the extent allowed by BASIC, the symbolism used in EMG-U is

consistent with that in eqs A.1 and A.2 and elsewhere in the text.

Greek symbols were spelled out partially or entirely.

3. EMG-U was developed on an Apple II Plus computer and optimized for

0.1 T/CG < 4 using tG = 100, G = 5, 0.001 < dtmin -. 1, and 0.001 a

< 1. Minor modifications may be required for optimum performance if

other computers or other values for the parameters are used.

4. EMG-U was designed to minimize execution time; major reductions are

not likely to be achieved unless a compiler is used.

5. The EMG evaluation subroutine (lines 2990-3160) may be used

independently of the other routines in EMG-U.







84




85


100 REM EMG-U EVALUATES THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG)
FUNCTION
110 REM ALSO DETERMINES TR, HP, TA, TB, B/A, W/SIG, AND (TR-TG)/SIG
120 B$ = ADD LINE":C$ = 3150 PRINT T,HEMG":D$ = "TO HELP DEBUG."

130 ZERO = 0:PT5 = .5:WUN = 1:TWO = 2:RTTWOPI = SQR (TWO *
3.141592654):TEN = 10:K4 = 10000:K5 = 100000: REM COMMON NUMERICAL
CONSTANTS
140 P = .2316419:B1 = .31938153:B2 = .356563782:B3 = 1.781477937:B4
= 1.821255978:B5 = 1.330274429: REM CONSTANTS FOR 14 POLYNOMIAL
APPROX.
150 A = 1:TG = 100:SIG = 5: REM EMG PRE-EXPONENTIAL CONSTANTS

200 INPUT "ALPHA = (.005 < ALPHA < 1) ? ";ALPHA
220 PRINT "INITIAL,FINAL VALUES OF TAU/SIGMA (T/S)": INPUT "(0.1 <=
T/S <= 4.25) ? ";RI,R2
240 INPUT "TAU/SIGMA INCREMENT ? ";RSIZE
260 INPUT "DT MIN = ? (.001,.01,.1,1 S) ";TLR

300 REM BEGIN DISK STORAGE OF EMG DATA (OPTIONAL)

400 FOR R = R1 TO R2 STEP RSIZE
440 T = R: GOSUB 3300:R = T:S = WUN / R
480 GOSUB 1000: REM GO TO MAIN EMG DATA ROUTINE
500 BA = (TB TR) / (TR XTA):WS1G = (TB XTA) / SIG:RR = (TR TG)
/ SIG
540 BA = INT (BA K4 + PT5) / INT (K4 + PT5):T = RR: GOSUB 3300:RR
= T
600 PRINT R,BA: PRINT WSIG,RR: PRINT
700 TR = ZERO:HP = ZERO:XTA = ZERO:TB = ZERO
720 TI = ZERO:T2 = ZERO:DT = ZERO:HTEMP = ZERO
800 NEXT R

830 REM END OPTIONAL DISK STORAGE OF EMG DATA
850 END : REM PROGRAM HAS RUN TO COMPLETION

1000 T = TG: GOSUB 3000:HTEMP = HEMG:DT = WUN
1020 T = T + DT: GOSUB 3000
1040 IF HEMG < HTEMP THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3350: GOTO 1100
1060 HTEMP = HEMG: GOTO 1020
1080 GOSUB 3350
1100 IF DT < = TLR THEN 1160
1120 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 1620
1140 GOTO 1100
1160 TR = T2 DT:T = TR: GOSUB 3000:HP = HEMG:HLOOK = HP ALPHA

1200 T = INT (TR + WUN + PT5)
1220 T = T WUN: GOSUB 3000
1240 IF HEMG > HLOOK THEN 1220
1260 DT = WUN: GOSUB 3400
1280 IF DT < = TLR THEN 1340
1300 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 1830
1320 GOTO 1280
1340 GOSUB 3500:XTA = T: GOSUB 3000





86



1400 T = INT (TR + PT5) INT (SIG + PT5)
1420 T = T + INT (SIG + PT5): GOSUB 3000
1440 IF HEMG > HLOOK THEN 1420
1460 Ti = T INT (SIG + PT5):T2 = T:DT = WUN: GOSUB 2030
1480 IF DT < = TLR THEN 1540
1500 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 2030
1520 GOTO 1480
1540 GOSUB 3500:TB = T: GOSUB 3000
1560 RETURN : REM END OF MAIN EMG DATA ROUTINE

1600 REM TR SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 1720
1620 FOR T = Ti TO T2 + DT STEP DT
1640 GOSUB 3000
1660 IF HEMG < HTEMP THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3350: RETURN
1680 HTEMP = HEMG
1700 NEXT T
1720 A$ = "THE TR SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END

1800 REM TA SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 1950
1830 FOR T = T2 TO Tl DT STEP DT
1860 GOSUB 3000
1890 IF HEMG < HLOOK THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3400: RETURN
1920 NEXT T
1950 A$ = "THE TA SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END

2000 REM TB SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 2150
2030 FOR T = TI TO T2 + DT STEP DT
2060 GOSUB 3000
2090 IF HEMG < HLOOK THEN GOSUB 3300:T = T DT: GOSUB 3400: RETURN
2120 NEXT T
2150 A$ = "THE TB SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END

2990 REM EMG EVALUATION SUBROUTINE BELOW THRU LINE 3160
3000 Y = (T TG) / SIG:E = S S / TWO S Y:Z = Y S:ZTEMP = ZERO
3020 IF Z > = ZERO THEN 3060
3040 ZTEMP = Z:Z = ABS (Z)
3060 NF = EXP ( Z Z / TWO) / RTTWOPI:Q = WUN / (WUN + P Z)
3080 PQ = Q (Bl + Q (B2 + Q (B3 + Q B4 + B5 Q Q)))
3100 I = NF PQ
3120 IF ZTEMP > = ZERO THEN I = WUN I
3140 HEMG = A S RTTWOPI EXP (E) I
3160 RETURN

3300 T = INT (T K5 + PT5) / INT (K5 + PT5): RETURN
3350 Ti = T TWO DT:T2 = T:HTEMP = ZERO: RETURN
3400 Ti = T:T2 = T + DT: RETURN
3450 DT = DT / TEN: RETURN
3500 T = (T1 + T2) / TWO: GOSUB 3300: RETURN
3550 PRINT CHR$ (7): PRINT A$;B$: PRINT C$: PRINT D$: RETURN













APPENDIX B--UNIVERSAL EMG DATA AT a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, 0.50



a = 0.05

T/aG (B/A)0.05 0.05/G (tR-tG)/oG

0.3 1.0331 5.1088 0.2792
0.35 1.0490 5.1812 0.3194
0.4 1.0679 5.2620 0.3576
0.45 1.0898 5.3506 0.3938
0.5 1.1141 5.4468 0.4280

0.55 1.1411 5.5494 0.4608
0.6 1.1701 5.6582 0.4920
0.65 1.2009 5.7722 0.5218
0.7 1.2337 5.8912 0.5502
0.75 1.2679 6.0146 0.5774
0.8 1.3037 6.1416 0.6034
0.85 1.3404 6.2722 0.6284
0.9 1.3783 6.4056 0.6522
0.95 1.4170 6.5414 0.6752
1.0 1.4563 6.6796 0.6974

1.05 1.4964 6.8196 0.7186
1.1 1.5368 6.9610 0.7392
1.15 1.5776 7.1040 0.7590
1.2 1.6189 7.2482 0.7782
1.25 1.6605 7.3934 0.7966
1.3 1.7022 7.5392 0.8146
1.35 1.7441 7.6862 0.8320
1.4 1.7862 7.8336 0.8488
1.45 1.8285 7.9816 0.8650
1.5 1.8706 8.1302 0.8810

1.55 1.9132 8.2792 0.8964
1.6 1.9555 8.4286 0.9114
1.65 1.9982 8.5784 0.9258
1.7 2.0407 8.7286 0.9400
1.75 2.0833 8.8788 0.9538
1.8 2.1259 9.0296 0.9672
1.85 2.1685 9.1804 0.9804
1.9 2.2111 9.3314 0.9932
1.95 2.2535 9.4826 1.0058
2.0 2.2961 9.6338 1.0180


87





88







G (BA)0.05 0.05/aG (tR-tG)/aG
2.05 2.3387 9.7856 1.0298
2.1 2.3813 9.9370 1.0414
2.15 2.4237 10.0890 1.0528
2.2 2.4662 10.2406 1.0640
2.25 2.5084 10.3926 1.0750
2.3 2.5509 10.5448 1.0856
2.35 2.5934 10.6968 1.0960
2.4 2.6355 10.8490 1.1064
2.45 2.6778 11.0010 1.1164
2.5 2.7200 11.1534 1.1262

2.55 2.7620 11.3056 1.1360
2.6 2.8044 11.4580 1.1454
2.65 2.8465 11.6104 1.1546
2.7 2.8885 11.7628 1.1638
2.75 2.9303 11.9152 1.1728
2.8 2.9723 12.0678 1.1816
2.85 3.0143 12.2202 1.1902
2.9 3.0561 12.3726 1.1988
2.95 3.0978 12.5252 1.2072
3.0 3.1395 12.6776 1.2154





89







a = 0.10

T/ (B/A). 1 WO/. /G (tR-tG)/oG

0.1 1.0013 4.3142 0.0940
0.15 1.0043 4.3412 0.1440
0.2 1.0096 4.3764 0.1916
0.25 1.0174 4.4200 0.2366
0.3 1.0278 4.4710 0.2792
0.35 1.0406 4.5292 0.3194
0.4 1.0560 4.5932 0.3576
0.45 1.0734 4.6628 0.3938
0.5 1.0927 4.7372 0.4282

0.55 1.1140 4.8158 0.4608
0.6 1.1367 4.8984 0.4920
0.65 1.1608 4.9844 0.5218
0.7 1.1864 5.0736 0.5502
0.75 1.2133 5.1660 0.5774
0.8 1.2412 5.2608 0.6034
0.85 1.2700 5.3584 0.6284
0.9 1.3001 5.4580 0.6522
0.95 1.3309 5.5598 0.6752
1.0 1.3621 5.6632 0.6974

1.05 1.3942 5.7684 0.7186
1.1 1.4269 5.8748 0.7392
1.15 1.4599 5.9828 0.7590
1.2 1.4935 6.0918 0.7782
1.25 1.5274 6.2016 0.7966
1.3 1.5615 6.3124 0.8146
1.35 1.5960 6.4242 0.8320
1.4 1.6307 6.5364 0.8488
1.45 1.6658 6.6492 0.8659
1.5 1.7006 6.7626 0.8810

1.55 1.7358 6.8764 0.8964
1.6 1.7712 6.9908 0.9112
1.65 1.8066 7.1054 0.9258
1.7 1.8419 7.2204 0.9400
1.75 1.8775 7.3356 0.9538
1.8 1.9128 7.4512 0.9672
1.85 1.9486 7.5670 0.9804
1.9 1.9843 7.6830 0.9932
1.95 2.0198 7.7992 1.0058
2.0 2.0555 7.9154 1.0180





90








T/CG (B/A)0.1 W0.1/G (tR-tG)/aG

2.05 2.0913 8.0320 1.0298
2.1 2.1270 8.1486 1.0414
2.15 2.1627 8.2652 1.0528
2.2 2.1985 8.3822 1.0640
2.25 2.2340 8.4992 1.0750
2.3 2.2697 8.6160 1.0856
2.35 2.3054 8.7332 1.0960
2.4 2.3409 8.8504 1.1064
2.45 2.3765 8.9676 1.1160
2.5 2.4122 9.0850 1.1262

2.55 2.4475 9.2024 1.1360
2.6 2.4831 9.3198 1.1454
2.65 2.5184 9.4374 1.1548
2.7 2.5541 9.5546 1.1638
2.75 2.5893 9.6722 1.1728
2.8 2.6249 9.7898 1.1816
2.85 2.6603 9.9074 1.1902
2.9 2.6955 10.0248 1.1988
2.95 2.7307 10.1426 1.2072
3.0 2.7659 10.2602 1.2154




91








a = 0.30

T/O (B/A)0.3 W0.3/UG (tR-tG)/oG

0.3 1.0185 3.2248 0.2792
0.35 1.0268 3.2616 0.3194
0.4 1.0366 3.3014 0.3576
0.45 1.0474 3.3434 0.3938
0.5 1.0592 3.3878 0.4282

0.55 1.0722 3.4336 0.4608
0.6 1.0857 3.4806 0.4920
0.65 1.0998 3.5290 0.5218
0.7 1.1149 3.5784 0.5502
0.75 1.1303 3.6288 0.5774
0.8 1.1463 3.6800 0.6034
0.85 1.1627 3.7316 0.6284
0.9 1.1800 3.7844 0.6522
0.95 1.1973 3.8374 0.6752
1.0 1.2151 3.8914 0.6974

1.05 1.2334 3.9456 0.7186
1.1 1.2520 4.0004 0.7392
1.15 1.2709 4.0558 0.7590
1.2 1.2900 4.1114 0.7782
1.25 1.3095 4.1678 0.7966
1.3 1.3293 4.2244 0.8146
1.35 1.3493 4.2814 0.8320
1.4 1.3696 4.3388 0.8488
1.45 1.3902 4.3966 0.8650
1.5 1.4108 4.4546 0.8810

1.55 1.4317 4.5132 0.8964
1.6 1.4527 4.5718 0.9114
1.65 1.4742 4.6308 0.9258
1.7 1.4955 4.6900 0.9400
1.75 1.5170 4.7496 0.9538
1.8 1.5387 4.8094 0.9672
1.b5 1.5606 4.8692 0.9804
1.9 1.5825 4.9294 0.9932
1.95 1.6043 4.9898 1.0058
2.0 1.6263 5.0504 1.0180





92







T/oG (B/A)o.3 W.3/oG (tR-tG)/aG

2.05 1.6486 5.1108 1.0298
2.1 1.6710 5.1716 1.0414
2.15 1.6933 5.2326 1.0528
2.2 1.7155 5.2936 1.0640
2.25 1.7379 5.3548 1.0750
2.3 1.7604 5.4160 1.0850
2.35 1.7829 5.4774 1.0960
2.4 1.8053 5.5388 1.1064
2.45 1.8279 5.6004 1.1164
2.5 1.8507 5.6620 1.1262

2.55 1.8730 5.7236 1.1360
2.6 1.8959 5.7854 1.1454
2.65 1.9186 5.8472 1.1548
2.7 1.9413 5.9090 1.1638
2.75 1.9639 5.9710 1.1728
2.8 1.9865 6.0328 1.1816
2.85 2.0092 6.0948 1.1902
2.9 2.0317 6.1568 1.1988
2.95 2.0544 6.2188 1.2072
3.0 2.0771 6.2810 1.2154





93








a = 0.50

T/OG (B/A)0.5 W0.5/G (tR-tG)/G

0.3 1.0133 2.4442 0.2792
0.35 1.0195 2.4706 0.3194
0.4 1.0264 2.4986 0.3576
0.45 1.0341 2.5284 0.3938
0.5 1.0425 2.5588 0.4282

0.55 1.0515 2.5902 0.4608
0.6 1.0608 2.6226 0.4920
0.65 1.0705 2.6552 0.5218
0.7 1.0807 2.6882 0.5502
0.75 1.0911 2.7214 0.5774
0.8 1.1018 2.7550 0.6034
0.85 1.1127 2.7888 0.6284
0.9 1.1242 2.8226 0.6522
0.95 1.1354 2.8568 0.6752
1.0 1.1471 2.8908 0.6974

1.05 1.1591 2.9252 0.7186
1.1 1.1709 2.9594 0.7392
1.15 1.1832 2.9940 0.7590
1.2 1.1954 3.0284 0.7782
1.25 1.2079 3.0628 0.7966
1.3 1.2204 3.0974 0.8146
1.35 1.2331 3.1322 0.8320
1.4 1.2460 3.1668 0.8488
1.45 1.2593 3.2014 0.8650
1.5 1.2720 3.2362 0.8810

1.55 1.2852 3.2710 0.8964
1.6 1.2984 3.3060 0.9114
1.65 1.3120 3.3408 0.9256
1.7 1.3254 3.3756 0.9400
1.75 1.3390 3.4108 0.9538
1.8 1.3527 3.4458 0.9672
1.85 1.3663 3.4808 0.9804
1.9 1.3802 3.5160 0.9932
1.95 1.3940 3.5512 1.0058
2.0 1.4079 3.5864 1.0180




Full Text
14
Table 2.2. Constants in the Polynomial Approximation
for Ijj in eq 2.4a
p = 0.2316419
b1 = 0.319361530
b2 = -0.356563762
b3 = 1.761477937
b4 = -1.821255978
be = 1.330274429
aSee text immediately after eq 2.4 or reference 33.


39
Table 3.2. However, the accuracy and precision for M2, Oq, tG and t at
a = 0.3 and 0.5 are still sufficient to permit peak modeling decisions
to be made.
Discussion
Detailed Discussion of Precision
Shown in Table 3.6 are the precision data for t, W_, and (B/A)
used in this study. The RSD results were obtained by converting
previously reported raw precision data (32) to the form appropriate for
error propagation analysis for the conditions specified in Table 3.6.
Data excluded in the previous study for (B/A 1) were also excluded in
this analysis. The RSDs of tR, Wa, and (B/A)a for individual peak
shapes (at a given peak height fraction) were averaged as done
previously, thereby implicitly assuming the independence of the RSDs on
peak shape.
The RSDs for tR, Wa, and (B/A 1) for individual peak shapes were
originally reported relative to aQ, aG, and (B/A 1) respectively.
Multiplication by Cg/tR, ancl (B/A 1)a/(B/A) converted them to
the appropriate form.
Since the RSDs of tR, WQ, and (B/A) were assumed to be independent
of peak shape, intuitively it might seem that this should also be true
for the RSD of any calculated CFOM. This is not the case, however. For
one group of CFOMs (Nsys, M2, G, tG, Nmax, RSE, and M^), a slight to
moderate variation in their RSDs with (B/A). was observed. This can be
explained by examining the random error propagation in the general
empirical N s equation,
Nsys = (tR/Wa)2/[(B/A)a + C2J
(3.9)


68
2. From eq 4.9 it is clear that the concentration of analyte injected,
Cinj, is directly proportional to the amount of analyte injected.
Cinj = qinj/Vinj
(4.10)
3. Therefore the relative LOD (in units of concentration), C^, is
proportional to the true, absolute LOD, q^ (in units of amount).
CL = qL/Vinj
(4.11)
Though reached in a straightforward manner, the conclusion stated
above is nevertheless false. The error in reasoning is best described
as an improper or incomplete analogy. In going from a true expression,
eq 4.10, to a false statement, eq 4.11, C^nj and q^nj were replaced by
two limiting quantities and q^, respectively. No analogous
substitution was made for V^nj, however, and therein lies the error.
Vinj W vary continuously over 0 < Vinj < Vinj>max, where Vinj>max is
some limiting, maximum injection volume to be discussed momentarily.
Unless V.nj = Vinj>max, eq 4.11 is false.
A numerical example will help demonstrate the absurdity of eq 4.11.
Suppose the true, absolute LOD (q^) for analyte X had been determined
1 P
independently by two scientists using the same LC system to be 1 x 10
mol. If the scientists had used different injection volumes of 5 uL and
50 uL, according to eq 4.11 the relative LODs (C^'s) for the same
chromatographic system would be 2 x 10^M and 2 x 10-^M, respectively.
Clearly eq 4.11 is inappropriate.
The correct expression, eq 4.12 below, is obtained by using
^inj,max -*-n Place of V n j But this expression is of little value
because of the difficulty in obtaining a consistent, precise estimate of
^inj,max*
CL ^L^inj ,max
(4.12)



PAGE 1

EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT By JOE PRESTON FOLEY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOI OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1983

PAGE 2

To Mom and Dad, for their love, support, and encouragement; and to my sister Barbara, for leading the way.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my research director, John G. Dorsey, not only for helping me with various research projects, but for being a special friend— for always finding the time to listen and for always doing the "extra things." Second, I want to express my gratitude to Thomas J. Buckley and Sharon G. Lias of the National Bureau of Standards for their help and the use of their facilities in preparing this document. Finally, I want to thank all the friends I made in Gainesville for making my graduate education at the University of Florida the happiest and most satisfying time of my life. 111

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii ABSTRACT v i 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Overview „ 1 Chromatographic Peak Characterization 1 Limit of Detection 8 2 GENERATION OF THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG) FUNCTION AND RELATED DATA 9 Introduction 9 EMG Evaluation 9 Background 9 Evaluation of the Integral Term 10 Obtaining Universal EMG Data 16 Background 16 Measurement of the Pertinent Peak Parameters „ 17 Comparison of Universal EMG Data 22 Conclusion „ 24 3 EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT FOR IDEAL AND SKEWED PEAKS 25 Introduction 25 Derivations 25 Experimental 28 Apparatus 28 Procedure 28 Results 30 Recommended CFOM Equations 30 Other CFOM Equations 33 Discussion 39 Detailed Discussion of Precision 39 Why Measure At 10$ Peak Height? 41 General Aspects 46 Conclusion 55 IV

PAGE 5

4 CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMIT OF DETECTION IN CHROMATOGRAPHY 56 Introduction 5b Identifying Current Problems 56 Literature Survey Results 56 Numerical Example 58 Solving the Problems „ 60 Eliminating Mistaken Identities 60 Choosing a Model 63 Using the Correct Units 66 Converting to Chromatographic Reference Conditions 70 The Numerical Example Revisited 79 Conclusion 81 5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 82 APPENDICES A DISCUSSION AND LISTING OF THE BASIC PROGRAM, EMG-U 84 B UNIVERSAL EMG DATA AT a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 87 C DERIVATION OF V inj>max 95 REFERENCES 96 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 100

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT By JOE PRESTON FOLEY December 1 983 Chairman: Dr. John G. Dorsey Major Department: Chemistry The measurement and interpretation of several chromatographic concepts and parameters, hereafter referred to as chromatographic figures of merit (CFOMs) are improved via equations and concepts developed in this work. The previous uses of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) model in chromatography are briefly reviewed. A method for evaluating the EMG function and a set of algorithms for obtaining universal data are presented and are shown to be simpler and easier to use than those previously reported. The corresponding BASIC program, EMG-U, is also briefly discussed. By use of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) as the skewed peak model, empirical equations based solely on the graphically measurable retention time, t fi peak width at 10% peak height, W Q ,, and vi

PAGE 7

the empirical asymmetry factor, B/A, have been developed for the accurate and precise calculation of CFOMs characterizing both ideal (Gaussian) and skewed peaks. These CFOMs include the observed efficiency (number of theoretical plates), N ; the maximum efficiency sys attainable if all asymmetry is eliminated, N„ v ; the EMG peak parameters, t^, a-,, and t; the first through fourth statistical moments; the peak skew and peak excess, Yg and Y„; and two new CFOMs — the relative system efficiency, RSE, and the relative plate loss, RPL. Equations for the number of theoretical plates and the variance (second central moment) are accurate to within 1.5% for 1.00 <_ B/A £ 2.76. width and B/A at 10% peak height are recommended. The current problems with the LOD concept in chromatography are reviewed. They include confusing the LOD with other concepts in trace analysis; the use of arbitrary, unjustified models; the use of concentration units instead of units of amount; and the failure to account for differences in chromatographic conditions (bandwidths) when comparing LODs. Two models are proposed for calculating the chromatographic LOD. A new concept, the standardized chromatographic LOD, is introduced to account for differences in chromatographic bandwidths of experimentally measured LODs. The standardized chromatographic LOD is shown to be a more reliable CFOM than the conventional (non-standardized) chromatographic LOD. Vll

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview Chromatography is a well-known method for the separation and quantitation of chemical moieties from a (sample) mixture. Over the years several concepts and parameters, hereafter referred to as chromatographic figures of merit (CFOMs), have been introduced to characterize the separation and quantitation. Unfortunately, some of the CFOMs are often difficult to estimate [those which characterize chromatographic peaks]; others are ambiguous [e.g., the limit of detection (LOD)]. The goal of the present work, which is introduced in more detail in the following two sections, is the improvement of the measurement and interpretation of these chromatographic figures of merit. It is beyond the scope of this work to introduce or review the development of these CFOMs from either a historical or theoretical point of view. Such discussions and references to additional discussions may be found elsewhere (1-10). Chromatographic Peak Characterization In recent years there has been considerable interest in the characterization of experimental chromatographic peaks. Presented in Table 1.1 are the names, symbols, and general expressions that have evolved for the parameters used in chromatographic peak

PAGE 9

p •r-I CD s O 01 CD Cm 3 bO •H Eb O •H £ Q. cd Cm bO O p cfl S o s^ XI o c o a s o o c o H m CO 0) SL, a CNJ CD B •H P C o •H P c CD -P CD Cm o X e GO a 03 a -h 3 o a t, •H P X Ctl cti a> cu aoa M X X cd cd cd C CD CD D, Q. O. s P S P .Q cd H Cm CO CD CD -P P CD cO S rH a cd a E Cm •H CO .-) P ft cd o c •H C 4>> 1-J CD P Cm c O aa) P .a a> jj Sa o •H p a cd Cm Cm P XS b0 •H (D x a CO CD CO P C •H O a a o r-I P o (D H Cm c a o Cm Cm G s cd Cm CD CD TD CO p Cm Cm CO CD TJ 3 =3 CD CO •H bO b£> P P -P ,~v H •H O C •H J-> [XI Ex. a CD C 8 — CD bO XI CD CD o C CO V CD CD CO 3 CO CO cd P cr o CD p cd H CD Cm < p •a \ a, cd X) — *• c o DQ X! 13 p X bO •H 3= x cd CO p a CD % 6 cd o r-i s Cm CD P O X CO P H O X3 P cd CD cd Cm •r-I Cm p co >t •H a Cm O CD o *— > P CD CO H cd CD a cd p CD 1 CO X o C Cm cd >} p p 3 CO CO cd a CD •H H XI •H X! 3 CO XI Cm -p H ^ it JsS ZA o D. cd cd cd CO Cm a CD CD CD CD CD CD a D. a. Q. N o s V. 4-5 o 2 \ p X3 P X CM O S *> p -p — < X a CM \ CO C\J 2 s. on 2 i-n f c\j CM o Cm -P G CD O a cd CD a. p W Cm •H Cm CM S O C cd •H Cm cd > P a CD s o s cd Cm p C CD o G CM >CO P a CD a o s rH cd Cm p C CD Q X P G 3 CD CO i, cd CD a CO CO CD O X CD id cd CD a

PAGE 10

characterization. The graphical chromatographic parameters are illustrated in Figure 1.1. These CFOMs have been estimated either manually using graphical measurements made directly from the chromatogram or by a computer following data acquisition. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Manual methods were used exclusively at first and are employed quite extensively today. For arbitrary peak shapes, they are accurate for only five CFOMs: t fi B/A, h p W b and W If a Gaussian peak shape is assumed, however, then M^ = t R and Mp is only a function of W,, W or Mq and N may subsequently be calculated. Except for higher even central moments, the remaining CFOMs are zero for Gaussian peaks. For real chromatographic peaks, it is almost always a mistake to assume a Gaussian peak shape. Experimentally these ideal, symmetric peaks are rarely, if ever, observed due to various intracolumn and extracolumn sources of asymmetry (5,11-23). Kirkland et al. have shown that the plate count can be overestimated by as much or more than 100% if any of the three most common Gaussian-based equations are employed (23). Computer estimation methods are more accurate than common manual methods for a given CFOM but are not available to every chromatographer. The general approach taken has been one of peak statistical moment analysis (6,11,22-24). Via relatively simple algorithms all the CFOMs may be determined quite accurately, though the precision of the second and higher central moments is seriously affected by baseline noise (25). The failure of the Gaussian function as a peak shape model for real chromatographic peaks led to the search for a more accurate model and

PAGE 11

H LJ < LJ CL Q LU N O Figure 1.1. Graphical chromatographic parameters shown at peak height fraction a = 0.10. Except for A, B, and B/A at a = 0.10, all width related measurements are subscripted with the value of a to prevent ambiguity.

PAGE 12

the eventual acceptance of the exponentially modified Gaussian (£MG), a function obtained via the convolution of a Gaussian function and an exponential decay function which provides an asymmetric peak profile. The development, characterization, and theoretical and experimental justification of this model have been thoroughly reviewed (21,22,26,27). Previous chromatographic studies (11,12,14,15,17-23,25-31) involving the EMG function, summarized in Table 1.2, demonstrate the utility of this skewed peak model. Adoption of the EMG peak-shape model has improved the estimation of the CFOMs. A new algorithm for the computer-based peak moment analysis has been derived (25) and tested (22) which is less sensitive to baseline noise and the uncertainty of peak start/stop assignments. More recently, Barber and Carr described a manual method for CFOM quantitation which requires the graphically measurable retention time tpi peak width W, empirical asymmetry factor B/A, and successive interpolations from three large-scale universal calibration curves (31,32). The primary objective of this part of the present study is the development, using the EMG model, of accurate equations for CFOM calculation dependent solely on tp, Wq and B/A. The need for computerized data acquisition is thus circumvented, and, in addition, CFOM calculation via these equations is expected to be faster and more precise than the other accurate manual method since no graphical interpolation is required. The previously reported methods for evaluating the EMG function (14,16,19,27) and obtaining chromatographic peak data (19,26,31) were too inaccurate or too unwieldy to use in the present study, which

PAGE 13

rH 0) CD O *t in *t-so ca o CO CTi o Tt*~ LO CM 'vO ro O 2 c CO 3 CM CM CM en CM CM CM CM CM CM 0) •• V Ch a 0) 25 as 53 — CO 34t c cfl cd CO H bO a o co m 3 rH co 3 •H o cd 3 •H 43 •H o CO P CD 43 43 o c 43 •H a cO a cfl bO 43 c -o c Cm 43 3 3 3 0) CO to •H O •r-J c CD > o 3 o Cm •H > CD -is! 3 CO 43 •H (D L a CO 3 CO n CO T3 >> a 3 cd CD O > a CO T3 43 o P cO O 43 a 3 o o O CO s •H 43 CO 3 3 3 3 43 rH > CO CO o O O 43 43 43 a >> •H CD X H CO a rH -P JM 3 cd 43 43 bO T3 a a 3 H •H CO CO CD a a 3 3 3 CO o cd n CD 3 a CO cfl •H cfl 43 43 •i-i e a CT 3 cc a a jO CO 3 s P 1 c CJ 3 a CO cO a 3 3 a a 3 X a o i—: J CD cd CD 3 o bO CD > > cfl CO cd X ,— 1 > O a w 3 •r-4 £ 43 •H CO s •H "O 3 rH 43 Cm 43 cd X) cO > a 3 o > H to CO 43 3 o P rH >> a o o 3 p 3 a cd o CD CJ -o o CO 3 43 CO 3 >> O o 3 •H 43 bO n a c a 3 id 43 0) O id O O 3 3 43 o C o •H Cm XS CO • ~ o CD CO CD CD 3 •H rH Cm 3 3 3 o •H x: a e a a S O 43 o rH O O cd M J T3 o n 3 o 3 •H a cO CD CO •H •H 3 H CD 5 H rH a -P CO a > P 3 P 43 CD o 3 -P A 3 3 43 o a CD •H rH 3 O cfl CO S •H H co 3^ rH 3 > cd 3 3 X bO N 3 43 3 O _o rH O o CO a CO H H rH c CO o c o o •H 3 Eh •H 3 3 (D 3 P P 3 o 43 •H H -p 3 o CD 43 CD a 3 3 O CO > 43 o JS o Cm -P 43 > CO T3 a 3 43 43 Q. 43 CD O C o o X 3 cd 3 CO Cm > o -a 3 Cm cfl O -P O cO O 3 Cm 3 CO cfl Cm 3 CD CD a o 43 Cm rH O CO Cm •H H 3 CD Cm CD hfl •i-> 13 o CD o CD CD CD O cd T3 O o 43 •H c T3 Eh 3 3 Cm rH 3 C P 3 Cm -p £: 3 cfl 3 O a Cfl o Cm a a CO CO O CO 3 Cm O Cm Cm 3 O 3 O O o 3 a a rH O •H O O a* •H CO rH •H T3 CO rH o CO H o 43 00 P H o 43 CO H O u -P S o 43 3 43 43 3 CO > > 43 3 o -C o 3 CO o rH o o 43 H >^ 3 O o cd cd cj> CD CD 3 CD o CD CD 00 O rH 73 o 3 a 3 Q-i P 43 Cm CO Cm : M cfl CO CO CO a Cm e 43 • Cm CD K Cm CD Cm Cm CD 3 x: B Cm o X CM — CD X5 CD CD 3 CD CD rH 3 cd o p •H CD o CD rH t, ff\ CTi v£> CO CA OS CFl O o CM CM C[. f— r— 43 cO in in J3 -D VO MD vO frtc— n— tC— c— c— CO H ca o> CTi CA CA ca a\
PAGE 14

C\J *O H -P CD -P Q, CO O ^! cri 2 b -p H •H jC Eh a CD Ct) S ^ hC Cm o O -p — cO CO 3 2 CD CD o S-. •H u 3 > SZ M CD O •H Sh H w a s O g SI •H o _c H Cm Q. -P o CO !U m O C bo JP o o w •H -p •H -P en -a D a H o -4 O u cfl > ,a CD c o Q, o o t, • .H CD o T3 aj o Cm 0) -P -a C M 02 c CD CO C CD B O O -p D •rH •H X S-. -C P CD -P a CO 1 CO c0 3 1 C L, CT CM •H bO CD <~ CD .H CO i — cn .O t— 03 CO cd CT\ CT\ cy>

PAGE 15

8 employed an Apple II Plus microcomputer. This necessitated, therefore, the development of a simpler method for evaluating the EMG function and the incorporation of a simpler, more accurate, and more general set of algorithms for obtaining the EMG data of interest. Limit of Detection The limit of detection (LOD) is generally defined as the smallest concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected with reasonable certainty for a given analytical procedure. Though arguably the most important figure of merit in trace analysis, the LOD remains an ambiguous quantity in the field of chromatography. Detection limits differing by orders of magnitude are frequently reported for very similar (sometimes identical!) chromatographic systems. Such huge discrepancies raise serious questions about the validity of the LOD concept in chromatography. The primary objective of this part of the present work is to restore the integrity of the LOD concept, to make the chromatographic LOD a reliable, meaningful figure of merit. This will be accomplished in two steps: First, the major sources of the discrepancies in chromatographic detection limits, i.e., the current problems with the LOD concept, will be identified. Second, each problem will be addressed and eliminated (or circumvented).

PAGE 16

CHAPTER 2 GENERATION OF THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG) FUNCTION AND RELATED DATA Introduction This chapter describes the improvements achieved by this study in evaluating the EMG function and in obtaining the EMG data of interest. The results of the present work are compared with those previously obtained. In addition, the corresponding BASIC computer program, EMG-U, is listed and discussed briefly in Appendix A. Universal EMG data are tabulated in Appendix B. It is hoped that this will facilitate the use of the EMG function, whenever applicable, in modeling studies in chromatography or any other area. EMG Evaluation Background Description of the EMG function It is beyond our scope to derive the EMG function from first principles. Those who so desire should see the treatments given by Sternberg (11, pp. 250-253) or Kissinger et al. (12, pp. 159-162). Their results are shown below in eq 2.1. z/(2) 1/2 *EMG XW = *-i\UQ{£) --/ij expLu.muQ/ T ;_ ^ -o — -c G v h £MG (t) = [Atf G (2) 1/2 A] exp[0.5(a r /T) 2 (t-t r _)A] /exp(-x 2 )dx (2.1) /• PE 1 E 1 I 1 where z = (t t G )/a Q On/x (2.2) Equation 2.1 shows that the EMG function is defined by three parameters:

PAGE 17

10 the retention time, t Q and standard deviation, a Q of the parent Gaussian function; and the time constant, t ? f the exponential decay function. In addition, the quotient t/Oq is a fundamental measure of an EMG peak's asymmetry. The arbitrary constant A determines the amplitude of the function. Note that the right hand side of eq 2.1 can be broken into 3 parts: the pre-exponential term (PE.,), the exponential term (£.]), and the integral term (I,). Discrepancies. A literature survey which I conducted revealed three discrepancies in eq 2.1. In the first instance, a factor of 2 difference observed in the pre-exponential term, PE,, is relatively unimportant because this affects only the zeroth statistical moment (peak area). All other parameters, including higher order moments which are normalized by the zeroth moment, are unchanged by this factor of 2. The second and third discrepancies are serious, however. Both were observed in the denominator of the second quotient, (t t Q )/T, within the exponential term, E.,. In one case, an additional factor of 2 was present; in the other, a Q was added to this denominator and omitted from the numerator of the pre-exponential term, p£,. These errors invalidate those expressions for the EMG function. Evaluation of the Integral Term Range of z. The methods used to evaluate eq 2.1 have frequently been omitted from the EMG literature. Since the evaluation of the first two terms is straightforward, the reported methods differ only in the manner in which the integral, Ij, is determined; the I-j approximations, in turn, depend on the value of z in the upper limit of I.. It is convenient to group the range of possible z values into three regions: a) z <. -3; b)-3 <. z < 4; and c) z >. 4 In region c, the definite

PAGE 18

11 integral equals the constant (tt) 1/2 to within 0.01? and is thus virtually independent of z. In regions a and b, however, the relative value of the definite integral is highly dependent on z. Numerous techniques permit the accurate evaluation of L in region b. In region a, however, as z becomes more negative, it becomes more difficult to approximate the integral to the same (high) relative accuracy. Thus it is pertinent to examine the practical minimum values of z for EMG peaks. As seen from eq 2.2, z depends on a) the normalized difference between the time of interest, t, and t Q ; and b) the reciprocal of the peak asymmetry, (T/a G )" 1 For a given peak shape (constant t/o g ), z will therefore be smallest (most negative) at the starting threshold of the peak, which may be conveniently defined as that time (t) on the leading edge of the EMG peak where the value of the function Ch Pun (t)] is a specified fraction, B, of its maximum value, i.e., h EMG (t)/h p = B. Moreover, the minimum z value will decrease as the starting threshold is decreased. This is shown in Table 2.1 where minimum z values are tabulated for EMG peaks with asymmetries ranging from 0.1 to 3. Another trend illustrated is that for a given starting threshold, z increases with increasing asymmetry (Va G ). Previous methods. Given this wide range of z values, how is I 1 (in eq 2.1) evaluated? Except for a vague reference to an unspecified polynomial approximation (30), all previous methods for calculating I 1 employ different techniques for different values of z. For moderate z values (e.g., regions b and c, above), some methods utilized the wellknown identity /. exp(-y 2 )dy = 0.5U) 1/2 [1 + erf(x)] (2.3)

PAGE 19

12 Table 2.1. Minimum z Values Needed to Evaluate EMG Peaks for Various Asymmetries (r/a Q ) and Starting Thresholds (B) a 0.001 0.01 0.1 T/0 G 0.10 b -12.9 -12.1 0.15 -10.3 9.6 8.7 0.20 8.6 7.9 7.0 0.25 7.5 6.9 6.0 0.30 6.8 6.2 5.3 1.00 4.4 3.6 2.7 3.00 3.6 2.8 1.9 a See eq 2.2 and text for description of z, T/a Q and B. Values for z have been rounded. b An underflow error occurs z < -13, thus preventing its measurement.

PAGE 20

13 (where erf is the error function) in order to take advantage of error function subroutines resident in the computers used (19,27). Others used eq 2.3, but approximated the error function by interpolation from a set of tabulated areas (14,18). For small z values (region a, above), the error function techniques were sufficiently inaccurate to warrant the use of other methods instead. In nearly every instance some type of asymptotic series was employed (14,19,27). In the lone exception, a Gaussian function was substituted for the EMG function for any part of the peak profile where very small z values were encountered (18). This work. The approach taken in this study is to transform the integral in eq 2.1 via change of variable [x = y/(2) 1/2 ] to (tt) 1/2 /exp(-y 2 )dy/(27r) 1/2 The EMG function can now be written as h EMG (t) = tAa G (27T) 1/2 / T ][E 1 (see eq 2.1)] / exp(-y 2 )dy/(2Tr) 1/2 (2.4) -/-co ?E 4 h The integral in eq 2.4 can be approximated by a polynomial approximation l 4 (z<0) = NF(z) P(q) and l 4 (z>.0) = 1l 4 (z<0), where NF(z) = exp(-z 2 /2)/(27r) 1/2 P(q) = ^q + b 2 q 2 + b 3 q 3 + b^q 4 + b 5 q 5 •1 q = (1 + pz)~ and p,b 1 ,...,b 5 are constants given in Table 2.2 (33). Comparison. The values obtained for 1^ are compared to the true values (34,35) in Table 2.3 from z = -10 to z > 3.9. In addition, since In = ^/(tt) 172 (2.5) they can be compared to values obtained for I* via an asymptotic

PAGE 21

14 Table 2.2. Constants in the Polynomial Approximation for lu in eq 2.4 a p = 0.2316419 t> 3 = 1.781477937 b 1 = 0.319381530 b 4 = -1.821255978 b 2 = -0.356563782 b 5 = 1.330274429 a See text immediately after eq 2.4 or reference 33.

PAGE 22

15 Cd t =T >l m CM o en r — — .. — — > T3 a Cd X X Xi X I i h1 O CD vO 1 1 1 „ •H G CO CM CM c— X) ^ ^r cd S Q. t— VO CM vO CO CTv oo G CM H O H •=r O N. 4J X H Cm ^~ v| O ^-v XJ G CO (s CD N & C Sh D. o \ cd G "* £4 M g O Cm rH r^ pr ^r vO o in to o rd o m CM i — 1— l CD 1] o ^ •H 3 8 I 1 o G G S en O o o T— Q, St ^ O o CQ ^~ i — 1 — •c— X I—! u 3 c •H X X! X X X X c— O i ^r ^r VO o **% — cd H N O m CM t — < — in m in a. l ^~ K cd — I I 1 i on en ^r c— M [= G G o o o o — v_^ CM o O 3 d) 1 — — ^— CM G V, Q— r o 3 c— o CM o G a G x> X X X X CM o fc— o c a 0) M -a < 4-> CM o e'o OJ G • CM S-, bO JJ G oo =r c— vO en ro O o o <— CD cd O • H CO Cm 4-5 a O, C\J cr CD CD c G CD G o ca r— 1 cr. CD CD G Q, 4-5 rj CM O x> vO .=}CM o CM • CD 0) S o cd N T ~" — oo CO CO eu o H ] 1 1 Al cd X5 o a xT

PAGE 23

16 series (27), the most accurate method reported for z < -3. (Comparison with values for I 1 obtained via error function techniques when z > -3 (Ijj > 10") is not illustrative since the maximum absolute error in the polynomial approximation Iu(z) is estimated to be + 7.5 x 10~ 8 .) Table 2.3 shows that our method for evaluating 1^ is exceptionally accurate for moderate values of z. Moreover, it compares favorably with the asymptotic series method for evaluating I,, except for z < -8 where the latter method is somewhat better. Re-examination of Table 2.1 shows, however, that for all practical purposes z > -8 whenever T/a G J> 0.2. Thus our method for evaluation of 1^ can be used to evaluate the EMG function to within 1% or less for i/o n > 0.2. While being slightly less accurate than the most accurate previous method, the new technique for evaluating the EMG function is much more convenient than any of the previous methods. Only one simple subroutine requiring just a few programming lines (see lines 2990-3160 in Appendix A) is needed, whereas the other methods require at least two subroutines, if implemented on any computer without a built-in error function routine (i.e., nearly all microcomputers and many minicomputers) Obtaining Universal EMG Data Background Using the polynomial approximation for the integral in eq 2.4, the EMG function can be evaluated over the entire practical time range. Depending on the data required for the modeling process of interest, the EMG peaks could be generated "on the fly" as needed. Alternatively, the necessary EMG data could be generated (and stored) in advance and accessed when needed. Though the storage requirements may seem

PAGE 24

17 prohibitive for the latter, given a T/a Q value and a peak height fraction, a, three quantities completely specify an EMG peak (31). Figure t.1 shows an EMG peak with its pertinent graphical parameters. Regardless of the retention time, t Q and standard deviation, o of the (unconvoluted) parent Gaussian peak (not snown) (B/A) W_/a P and (t D ^G^ a G are universal constants so long as T / G and a remain fixed. Recent work has utilized these universal data sets almost exclusively (3D. Experimentally, three parameters must be determined in order to calculate the universal data: t R t, and t B (see Figure 1.1). Note that t R must be obtained before t. or t g because h p = h EMG (t R ) is needed for the latter. Measurement of the Pertinent Peak Parameters Previous methods In the past, t R nas been determined by one or more of the following methods: a) peak displacement data and knowledge of t G (19); b) differentiation of h £MG (t) and solving for roots (26); and c) least squares fitting of the top of the peak with a quadratic gram polynomial (26,31). Once t R has been found, t A and tg can be located. In the only method reported previously, two points [t.,, hg^tt^], [t 2 h EMG (t 2 )] are found so that t 1 < t A < t g (or t 1 < to < to). Linear interpolation yields the approximation for t (or t B ). This work The approach for finding these quantities is based on iterative search mechanisms, as the flowchart in Figure 2.1 shows. In the case of t R initial time limits are easily found using the fact that t R is always greater than t Q The EMG function is then evaluated from

PAGE 25

18 Find initial time limits Y J. Calculate new time limits N t = t + dt (t R t B only) t=t-dt (t A only) Y -> Calculate value of t (and h ) f A r V N _^L Decrease value of dt Figure 2.1. Simplified flowchart for locating t (and h ), t or t The El'IG peak parameters must be input before beginning this search.

PAGE 26

19 the lower time limit to the upper time limit in increments of dt. When the maximum is found, new lower and upper time limits [given by t( current) 2dt and t(current), respectively] closer to the peak maximum are set, the time increment is decreased, and the search is begun again. The retention time, t R is approximated by t(last) dt mm The algorithm for estimating t A (or tg) is similar to the t. (or t B ) search algorithm previously discussed in that the time limits are analogous. Since t A < t R < tg, initial values for t 1 and to are easily determined. To locate t A (or tg) the EMG function is then evaluated from t s tg to t^ in decrements of dt (or from t 1 to to in increments of dt) until h EMQ (t) < ahp. New values for t^ and to [given by t( current) and t(current) + dt, respectively] closer to t A (or tp) are then set, the time decrement (increment) is decreased, and the search is repeated. This is continued until t< and t~ are known to the desired precision; t (or tg) is then given by (t 1 + tg)/2. The maximum error in the values of t R t A tg and related universal EMG quantities obtained via these search algorithms is presented in Table 2.4. In all cases the error is dependent on the smallest (most precise) time increment (or decrement), dt ^ i used in the last iteration of each search. In theory, dt min could be as small as desired. Due to the finite precision of computers, however, the time increment, dt would ultimately be reduced to such a low value that h EMG (t ) ~ h EMG (t+dt). (2.6) Henceforth the algorithms would cease to function accurately, if at all.

PAGE 27

20 Table 2.4. Maximum Errors in the Universal EMG Data and Selected Component Parameters Parameter 3 Maximum Error H dt min *!• fc B 1/2 dt min A = t R -t A B = t B -t R 3/2 dt m n VG = (V t A> /a G dt min /a G ( W /ff G dt min /G G a A, B, to t., and tg defined in Figure 1.1; a,,, t P and dt .„ described in text. G' U' mm

PAGE 28

21 As dt is decreased, the t R search algorithm will fail first, since the slope of the EMG function is smallest in the region of t Q Somewhat smaller (more precise) dt min 's could be employed in the searches for t. and tg before the algorithm breakdown described by eq 2„6 would occur. The increase in precision of t A and t fi is probably not worth the effort, however, since two out of the three universal EMG data expressions are dependent on the least precise quantity, t R The minimum usable value of dt depends on the precision of the computer employed and on the value of o Q chosen. In this study, the experimentally measured minimum ratio of dt/ov, was 0.0002 for 0.1 < t/o q < 3 using single precision arithmetic. Multiple precision capabilities would allow a still lower dt/cr„ ratio to be used. Comparison The algorithms for t R tj,, and tg may be compared as follows : 1. With the exception of the quadratic least squares method for finding tg, all of the methods for obtaining t R t,, and tg are designed for simulated data (essentially no noise). 2. The two algorithms for calculating t. (or tg) are quite similar. Both require two points which closely bracket the desired peak height fraction, a, and both are relatively unbiased. The subsequent interpolation performed in the previously described algorithm is potentially more precise than the averaging of the final time limits in the proposed search algorithm. If t and tg are already known as precisely as or more precisely than t R however, additional improvements in their precision, even if realized, will not yield significant increases in the precision of B/A and (t R -t G )/ a G 3. Our approach for determining t R though crude, is superior to the other three methods previously discussed for the following reasons: i) It is a general algorithm. Whereas methods a and b are specific to the EMG model, our search mechanisms will work for that and other peak models as well. ii) It is accurate and unbiased. In contrast, the quadratic least squares fitting method, though general, suffers from a small, but nevertheless observable bias (due to a determinate error) which increases with increasing peak asymmetry (26). iii) It is easy to understand and implement. The other methods are unnecessarily complex, though they admittedly have the potential for greater precision.

PAGE 29

22 4. The proposed search algorithms for determining t R) t A and to are superior to the previous methods because they can be de-bugged more easily. By having the time and the value of the EHG function printed every time the EMG function is evaluated, the programmer can literally watch the computer perform the search. Since the search logic is so simple, programming errors are easily detected. Upon elimination of the errors, the print statement may be removed. Comparison of Universal EMG Data Table 2.5 shows representative sets of universal EMG data obtained from this study and from a previous work (32) which utilized the quadratic least squares method and the interpolation method for the location of t R and t A (or t g ), respectively. The precision is reported for our data (in terms of maximum errors) and is assumed to be no worse than + 1 in the least significant digit of the previously reported data. Several points should be noted: 1 Although this difference is slight or non-existent at high asymmetries, the previously obtained universal data are somewhat more precise. This is expected since the algorithms used in locating t R t., and t B are potentially more precise than those developed here. 2. The data sets are in excellent agreement for all three universal EMG quantities at low asymmetries (t/ct„ <. 0.5). This agreement is especially significant at i/o Q =0.1, because it shows that the moderate errors introduced by the polynomial approximation for K in eq 2.4 when -12 < z < (see Table 2.3) are not transmitted to the universal EMG data. 3. Whereas the W a /a Q data reported previously are consistent with the corresponding data of this study over the entire range of T /cr p the remaining data sets are discordant for x/o Q 2 1.0. Relative to the current data sets, the previous ones for (t R -t G )/a Q and (B/A) appear to be slightly overestimated and underestimated, respectively. This discrepancy is due to the use of a least squares fitting method in the previous measurement of t R which overestimates this quantity for EMG peaks (26) and other types of skewed peaks. This bias increases from an insignificant value at low x/a Q to an observable one at r/a _> 1.0, 4. Despite the differences noted above, the general interlaboratory agreement is quite good. Though the current data are more accurate, either set of EMG data can be used with confidence for modeling studies.

PAGE 30

23 CD o T<*— tO r— to 1 c o o o i— X— 1 CD o o O o o I Eh o o o o o I a) • • • • •i Cm o o o o o i Cm 3 + + + + 1 •H 1 1 Q CM a i co o co co C i 3 ^— cn to L o -P "s. I O Jrf cn (^n en I — o £ '-* 1 •H Eh ro CO ea^ c— O 1 > o en CM cn i — l — •P 1

-p 1 w o ^-^ 1 -^^ H— I 1 O o CM ^r o -T c o 1 >> St CO fr CO in cC I CO T3 ON CM cn 1 — ^ — •H II I •rH 3 o ^r X) o C\J X! -p • • II • CO (0 1 H CO o o o T — ^ — 3 CO -P O CO •a *-> CD ^m ,— B CD CM O CD . •i-i on c a C o o C T3 4-1 -^ CD o o o o O 3 •H Jh a c • C 4-> a >> o o CO O T3 Cm + + S 3 Cm m -P •H H >,CO a X! rH CO cn C\J o ^r CM jp .H CO 3 t— C\J m Ln O CO 3 o -^ St C— on in VO Cm •H O H Eh •r— oo to ^ — CM O -P -H *p > O 00 c— tO ien C > G I CD 3 • • O CO CD CD •v. 1 Eh =T St in c— T m •P C Eh 3 1 a, >t nJ o a. T3 X) a C\J 3 X CO X2 > =r 0on m to CO o x) CO •a ^ — CO to i — CM \ rH C •H 3 ro c— tO en • co ^— s CO CO x! .p • • o •H o CO H co ^T ^r LTl C-. — X! -p Eh >. -P 1 a? td cn > 3 •s. H •H Eh 1 en a CQ CO U o o Cn to !X^ VO CD O -H l CD 3 o O in o c— CM cd 1 Eh • • • Eh o -p < 1 Oh T— i — — CM CM O O LO X) V. | Cm o • O 03 1 CM J T3 o CO CO on =r =r CD CD 1 o o o o o -P +1 rH o o o o o Eh X2 S o o o o o O CD CO I • • • • • a M H 1 CO o o o o o CD cfl 1 >> Eh I CO -a +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 CO 1 -H 3 Eh Eh X! -p on C— H— in cn o O E H co — OJ CM LTl in Eh M 1 o en UD cn •o Eh M I o o CO o oCD CD 1 • • • 1 — ^~ CM CM B 3 S H S 3 S •H G •r— LTt o o o s a "v • • • s 2! H o o *— CM m CO X!

PAGE 31

24 Conclusion Though the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) model has already been employed in numerous studies in chromatography as Table 1.2 shows, its usage might have been still more extensive had it not been for some confusing discrepancies and for the overly complex methods used for its evaluation reported previously. Hopefully the clarification of these discrepancies and presentation of a simple method for evaluating the EMG function and obtaining universal data will encourage more scientists in all fields to use the EMG model, when appropriate.

PAGE 32

a CHAPTER 3 EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT FOR IDEAL AND SKEWED PEAKS Introduction Adoption of the EMG model for chromatographic peak characterization results in a new set of chromatographic figures of merit (CFOMs) which re listed in Table 3.1. These CFOMs consist of fundamental and derived EMG parameters, the latter containing explicit expressions for the first through fourth statistical moments defined previously in Table 1.1. Included among these new CFOMs are the following: the retention time, t Q and standard deviation, a Q of the associated parent Gaussian peak from which the skewed peak is derived; the exponential modifier, t; the fundamental ratio, t/Oq, which characterizes peak asymmetry; the observed efficiency (number of theoretical plates) of a given (asymmetric) chromatographic system, N ; the maximum efficiency a given system could achieve, N max if all sources of asymmetry were eliminated; and finally, two CFOMs proposed originally in this work which demonstrate how peak asymmetry drastically reduces chromatographic efficiency— the relative system efficiency, RSE, and the relative plate loss, RPL. Derivations If the estimate G obtained from using a Gaussian peak shape equation is used to approximate the true value T of a CFOM for an asymmetric peak, the relative error RE which results is defined as 25

PAGE 33

26 Table 3.1. Chromatographic Figures of Merit Based on the Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Model Fundamental t o Qf t, x/a G Derived N sys = H 2 '(% 2 + t2 ) N max ~~ (V a G )£ RSE = ^ T sys /N max)
PAGE 34

27 RE = (G T)/T (3.1) which can be rearranged to give T = G/(fiE + 1) (3.2) Thus, the true value T and the Gaussian approximation G for the CFOM are related by the correction term (RE + 1) in the denominator of eq 3.2. Kirkland et al. have shown that RE = f(T/a Q ) (3.3) for the three popular Gaussian-based methods for determining plate counts of a system (23). Equation 3-3 should hold, in fact, for any CFOM for which a Gaussian approximation exists except t Q Since Barber and Carr have shown (31) that t/a G = f(8/A) (3.4) successive substitution of eqs 3-3 and 3.4 into eq 3.2 yields T = G/[f(B/A) + 1] (3.5) Although the exact form of f(B/A) is unknown, a least squares curve fitting of an RE versus B/A plot can give an excellent approximation. The above approach was used for calculation of N a rt and M sy s u c. Following this, t was calculated (see sixth equation, Table 3.1) by x [M 2 a Q 2]V2 (3<6) For the determination of t Q the universal relationship (t R t G )/ff Q = f(T/a Q ) (3.7) previously reported (31) was rearranged and combined with eq 3.4 to give fc G = H ~ a G f(B/A) (3.8)

PAGE 35

28 where f(B/A) was approximated by a least squares fit of (t R t Q )/a G vs. B/A. Since t R B/A, and W 0>1 are graphically measurable, all the remaining CFOMs can be calculated once the fundamental parameters o„, t, and tn have been determined. Experimental Apparatus An Apple II Plus 48K RAM microcomputer was programmed in BASIC for EMG peak generation. A curve-fitting program available from Interactive Microware (P.O. Box 771, State College, Pa., 16801) with linear, geometric, exponential, and polynomial capabilities was used for the unweighted least squares fitting of various data sets. Procedure EMG Peak Generation. Except as otherwise noted, values of A = 1, t G = 100, and G = 5 were used in eq 2.4 for EMG peak generation. The x /q ratio was varied from 0.1 to 3 in 0.05 increments producing data equivalent to 59 peaks. The times for t R t A and tg (see Figure 1.1) at a = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 for each of the 59 peaks were determined to within 0.001, using the simple search algorithm described in Chapter 2; corresponding values of W and B/A were then computed. Development of the CFQM equations Textfiles of fiE(N M a r ) vs. (B/A) 0<1)0>3j0>5 (t R t G )/ G vs. (B/A) 0#1>0#3)0-5 and RSE vs. ^ B/A ^0.1 ,0.3,0.5 were made for 1 iT/cr G ^'3The Gaussian relations CT G = w 0. i/' 4 2 9 1932 and M 2 = (W Q# ^4 .291932) 2 were used in the Gaussian approximations for ^ sy3 a G and M 2 at a = 0.1. Similar equations were used for M 2 an d a Q at a .3, 0.5. The true values of N gys a Q M 2

PAGE 36

29 and RSE were computed from the known values of x, o, t Q and t R for a given peak. The CFOM equations were developed by unweighted least squares curve fitting. The relationship between several quantities [e.g., RE(N), (B/A) a to a / CT Q] and t/o q has been shown previously (23,31) to be nonlinear for < V G < 0.5 and nearly linear for 0.5 <. T /n <. 3. Because similar relationships were observed in some of the textfiles above, least squares fitting was limited to about the same t/cu range 0.5-3 (1.09 < B/A <_ 2.76) except for the RSE vs. B/A textfile where the complete set of values was used in the regression analysis. Although the least squares fittings of the various B/A textfiles were initially judged by visual inspection and the coefficient of determination (square root of the correlation coefficient), their final evaluation was based on the accuracy and simplicity of the resulting CFOM equations. For ease of use, the CFOM equations were first simplified algebraically and then by the successive rounding of numerical coefficients. The occasional nearness of the decimal coefficients to whole numbers was exploited. For example, if f(B/A) = 1.02(B/A) + 0.69, then for 1 .09 <. B/A i 2.76, the much simpler function f(B/A) = B/A + 0.72 is approximately the same (exactly if B/A = 1.5) and the accuracy of this function is not significantly affected. All CFOM equations were simplified as much as possible — any more rounding of the coefficients will result in appreciably greater error. Evaluation of the CFOM equations The accuracy of the CFOM equations was evaluated in terms of four parameters, listed in decreasing order of importance: the percent relative error limits

PAGE 37

30 ($RELs) which represent the maximum possible error of the CFO'M equations within the specified B/A range; the mean percent relative error or bias, J&RE = E%RE/n; the average magnitude of the percent relative error, Z|$RE|/n; and the standard deviation of the percent relative error. The precision of the empirical, EMG-based CFOM equations and three Gaussian CFOM equations was calculated via error propagation theory and is reported as percent relative standard deviation (S&RSD). The required precision estimates of t R W a and (B/A) (the graphically measurable quantities) were obtained using data from a previous study (32). Results Recommended CFOM Equations Listed in Table 3.2 are the empirical CFOM equations based on t R W 0.1' and B/ ^ A measurements (see Figure 1.1) which we recommend. Accuracy. Using equation 1 in Table 3.2, the true efficiency of a chromatographic system, N sys may be estimated to within + 1.5$ for both Gaussian and exponentially tailed peaks within the asymmetry range 1.00 1 B/A i. 2.76. Equations for Mg, t Q and M 1 are equally if not more accurate over this asymmetry range. All CFOMs except RPL, Mg, Y g> and Y E can be estimated to within 5% for 1.09 <. B/A <. 2.76, the asymmetry range over which most of the curve fitting was performed. All CFOM equations are accurate to within + 5% for 1.19 <. B/A <_ 2.76, and 18 out of 21 are accurate to within 2%.

PAGE 38

31 n uo CM ^r o a -p • • CO -H CM CM CM CM K S •H +1 +1 +1 +1 a* rH u u Cm CM o in • O CM St +1 -M +1 Cw m in jQ o o o -p o • Lfl IT\ LO LA o in o o LH H • T~" • • • • • • • • • B *1 o i — o PO LO ^r ,0 CM I o o CM 3 cr, o CM :1 O C— CM cr, o JD CM 1 CT> O E— CM O CM I O o CM I o CM I O O CM I CT% o CM Cm O CO h -H o H a 2 to o p cd S o o o Cm CQ C O •H -P cd cr Pd •a 73 C CD o o CD OS c\J ro CD rH -Q cd H C o •i-4 cd 3 cr CD in CM + CQ O 3S •P CO > w XI CM I CM CQ ^r iO o a CM 2 cd CM i — i i — i \ CM CM cq O CD ^^ e> G c D i_ — 1 \ CM /-% • •—V -• — v cd CO ro cd -O sr >> l CM CM CO "N, cr 3 CM cr cr CD \ — (1) CD ^-* CM • ^_^ ^_^ H IX o CM CM -P is as as i i i — i II it II ii ii C CM CD *v s D P H H in ^r o I << CM -O CM ? \ eq ^— ar m CM wP en • CJ V •Q X /-^ < ^=r 1 1 w^ V, w u D to cr D s. v^ CD o o> — p CT> P ^• UG O 11 -P 1! ii ]] tP X b cd ca \ C5 a CO H p a cc; Cxi co OS Qui CM cd J3 cd ITl -Q in oo

PAGE 39

32 CM o +1 Cm Cm Ch X3 o -H c\j o o o LA o + 0) o yo CM s CM I cr, o lo • CM CTv o m CM 1 cr. o O o in • o en 1 — + + o o • CM I CD in o o 0) CTi CM CTi O VO t— CM I CTi O o I E— CM I C^ o LO I M3 CM I o o I rCM 5 CT. o cr co So cd cr T3 co x> C CO -p X CD I i CM jo cti CO cd ^^ ^r ^ cr a) + N. • H a i — i -p eg cr a> CM cd CM cd CM U3 D on CM CM X3 =r CM on D CM CM on a3 CM CT 03 CM 2 CM X! CM m I on as cr a> m S3 CO >cd on cr CD CM cr CO CO n en cm CO CM O* CM X cd CM cr CO S cd CM X CM a* 0) CM 2 CM a" X o s HP o -p d) cd CD X! pa 3 bQ •H Cm C •H -o CO 4-5 O •H a a) -a ca 4J c cd a CD 53 ra cd CD j CQ •a c cd (35 -p a o -o CO CO rd cq cd S-, CO X! P S3 Cm T3 CO a e 3 o Sh CO X •P o a 3 O si CO CO P B t— CM v| < pq v| M O d-, CO 00 CO M o O CM +1 CO U cd CO 4^ H S H H b O JM -a CD -P U o a co u 8 o X! -P cd X! -p Sh 0) CO •H a M -P •H s U3 u o u u <0 V CM o CM A cr> N. O -P a* o O O CM LO +1 -a a cd t> o •v. O CM + l a CO 4J 0) x> CO Ch cd w HP •H s r-t H O Jh Sh Sh O (w "O CO 4J Sh o a, 0) Sh 00 -p •H s •H Sh o Sh Sh m 0) •H C >H a) "v m CO CO Sh CO > co Cm SA Cm O V> o H Q, CO < Q) x: v. a) -p m w a> Q. CO .a CO a o, Cm o c o •H hP O a 3 ch CO •H o c% o M a G O •H CO H O Sh

PAGE 40

33 Except for eqs 11b, 13b, and 14b which had biases of +0.976$, +0.820$, and +1.111$, respectively, the bias for every equation given in Tables 3-2, 3-3, and 3.4 was less than + 0.6$. Precision Summary. For the equations in Table 3.2, the estimated relative standard (RSD) limits obtained via propagation of error theory for N sys' M 2' a G' N max' and RSE were a11 less than or equal to + 4.5$. RSD limits for t and H< were + 0.2$. The precision of the EMG equations in Table 3.2, the width-based Gaussian equations, and the calibration curve method of Barber and Carr (3D is compared for N sya M 2 and a Q in Table 3.5. The results shown for the Gaussian equations are valid for 50$, 30$, and 10$ width measurements because RSD(W 0>5 ) = RSD(W Q>3 ) = RSD(W Q 1 ). The slightly greater imprecision observed for the EMG equations is due to uncertainty in the B/A measurement not required for the Gaussian equations. The somewhat larger $RSDs for the method of Barber and Carr are probably due to interpolation uncertainties (from the calibration curves) unique to this method. The precision of the remaining CFOMs in Table 3.2 was found to be highly dependent on the peak shape. Rather than reporting RSD limits, the RSDs for several CFOMs or groups of CFOMs have been plotted vs B/A in Figure 31 • Other CFOM Equations Listed in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 are smaller sets of CFOM equations developed only for use in determining if a real chromatographic peak is well-modeled by an EMG peak and should not be used to routinely calculate any CFOM (including N ) since they are usually less accurate, less precise, and more complex than the analogous equations in

PAGE 41

34 J=) O c Tin a -p • • m • GO -H ^r -=f st OJ a S i +1 +1 +\ +1 co -p •H a H -r-l IS G G O g u O OJ o o +1 c LP. o I o CM +1 o 1 — + CM I o o to + in o I in • en + Cm • in m % • o ,-__ i +1 CO CO + CO o ^~v cd s bO *s c 03 •H ^-^ rH c^ o T3 sO -=T £ I CM JU fT) cd i — i • cu on O CL, o c \. •H 1 03 •> — > ro on H C CM B O o + o H #•*, m -P < on cu cti N, TO 3 33 o 3 cr x^ •— N CD UJ 1 cd -p V CO 3 — CM ss cr 00 Of") •\ W SO • OJ • O 05 • VO 3b -p m on 11 ii II CD rH CO ctf £3 a > 03 3g CM CM SI 33 in PO • o *-\ *i Ss pq Nw* CO in ( — 1 • 00 CM =t + o CM + on • on o • -"V o CM CM < y-*\ V, *N \ J) T— i — 03 v. 1 1 1 1 en CM CM to — vP O • X) O O o • 1 — 1 CM 1 1 1 rP N. cd X3 en ~ i m C\J CM o 23 £ J2 i — i i — i -p o IS -p o -p s S rH •H B •H co G CD G C I cd B O -p -p g O 3 — vO CM a x: s~*. O c— c— -p eti G o • +1 "x -p CM CM M 03 O O ^^ JD CO V| -P v| CM -P G 1 o> X— A • O O • o • CO G Q, o • o O -P TO *^-v v— -<"> O G -a cu < < \ cu i— i G \ II ^ o s 3 G 03 03 +J o O -^S K — G JG O G 3 TO v| o • v| O TO -C ^— V ^Ct, cd TO o o> =c • a. -P rH 1 — s on K (J a G JB • 03 • o 3 — w 1 CM en -H G • O •* G -P 3 G II o •H CO O Cd hO O **- Cm o Cm •rH Cm o a Cm • -tf*V Cl, io \ CM CT> S* x. Q3 o o • C O o ^—^ o V CM m -h Z -p TD H en + c + G C cd • +1 3 O Ctf o o o • Cm •H — •sS. a jc a. G < in O TO in a • x • G 1 G o s TO G O 3 v| 3 Q. G W3 O G K CO o cd S o cd G CC TO G D 00 TO -P o — -P N. -p 4J cd •H H rH •H G ^H G s G s a O Oh O H L ~ rH •H Cm rH rH H rH rH T> rH TO TD CO T3 G H G G -P CD a •H O o j.: O O G W •H rH G -p G G O cd o cd G G G G Q, m > a cx, o eg K) cd o a o T3 .p Cm G

PAGE 42

35 G J3 cd W Q -P sr t— • CM CM -1 •H 00 o os s o> t— o> OO T3 -a O o is a si rH +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 CO G G cd o CD x; J1 C C -p CD cd G a CD £> cd H rH CQ cd -P •H a H -H CD rH o o LO LO CD -Q C a CO CM + LO + CM + a H 3 • G we. o U g 0) o CM +1 o 1 1 — 1 o + LO o CM +1 O CM +i O 1 O 1 CD LO • O +1 o X! CO CO -p c CD s CD G 3 CO cd CD B • CD -G P 3 Qh a CD CM v| o < X a v| CM II O cq -p cd a*. rH ^H CO JJ •H a •H rH G O G G CD LP T3 o CM a G 3 ^— • >j3 cn CD si o a! • CO XS ^^ T En a, s^ o CO CO O c^ tj o CQ ** CD -P •H T — "N. 0O G t! a G JS • PQ O •H 1 X) X CQ CO H 3: T_ w (D G CM >> in — • O • G +> 3 !! H c ^ LO o •H O O cd tsO C o o **"'* Cm C— Ch •H v^O o •H co + > o si — LO CM X — i CM a b CM X i — i CM a X PQ 1 -o LO o 3 H S-, CD s 3 3 CQ o T CD 3 S3 O CO G C(H CD > CO G CD a CD -P G O cfl P X CO D 1 G bO O a> 3 PO CM a s OJ 1 —J a ~ CO o cd G cd o G id 00 O CM 05 LO cd -O D K -P CD O cd rH O. •^ CO -p G D CO -P 3 -P O 3= CM X CM 2 cc a o G O •H S •H G H O •H a •H • oo II 1! li i — i i — i -p Cm ^H •H M rH T3 H CO CD CD H CO CO £3 II IS n II •a CD cd S -a H G O H CD O A G -P O G -Q > w •H H G CD -p G O cd CQ CM CM a CO £3 'J -p cd cd CD CD cd > J3 G o G C1h O -O +> G Q, aq cd CD G

PAGE 43

36 Table 3.5. Precision 3 Comparison of Three Graphical Methods for Estimating N M 2 and G method Gaussian eqs sys + 2.0 M+ 2.0 + 1.0 empirical eqs, Table III, this work + 2.5 + 2.4 2.0 calibration curve method, reported previously (3D + 5 + 3 3 a,. Reported as percent relative standard deviation (%RSD). Precision of equations estimated via error propagation, usins data of Table 3.6.

PAGE 44

rH r4 H a H CO u cti CD CD O, > CD <4-l CO O c Cm O o -P u •H a o CO a; Cm •H TD O c a) CD S-, a. >> Q. CD L, T3 P CD c CD n •H i £-i i >> > rH GO H ffl • rc! — •H ra -P 2: c • ij CD C— C3 [& W • CD co m Q, ~— CD 1 C\J -P 03 • rl •h on C <-, o CD *-> CO 5 • CD r M P n c CD cvj o H H w co c r-l CM-H O !m •y^ L< O O b0 Cx, T3 a O c CD -P cd X) ci! a a m CD CD a> a. a. u X! cd cd a -P si a O CO
PAGE 45

38 ^ sjro Q_ ^ IS I01 CD cvi in C\J c\i o CD ro < CD O ro in CM _J__ O C\J in as a % in

PAGE 46

39 Table 3.2. However, the accuracy and precision for MU, a Q t Q and t at a = 0.3 and 0.5 are still sufficient to permit peak modeling decisions to be made. Discussion Detailed Discussion of Precision Shown in Table 3.6 are the precision data for t p W and (B/A) It EL 3, used in this study. The RSD results were obtained by converting previously reported raw precision data (32) to the form appropriate for error propagation analysis for the conditions specified in Table 3.6. Data excluded in the previous study for (B/A 1) were also excluded in CI this analysis. The RSDs of t R W & and (B/A) for individual peak shapes (at a given peak height fraction) were averaged as done previously, thereby implicitly assuming the independence of the RSDs on peak shape. The RSDs for t R W Qf and (B/A 1 ) for individual peak shapes were originally reported relative to a Q a Q and (B/A 1) respectively. Multiplication by o Q /t R Q /^ a and (B/A 1) /(B/A) converted them to the appropriate form. Since the RSDs of t R W & and (B/A) were assumed to be independent of peak shape, intuitively it might seem that this should also be true for the RSD of any calculated CFOM. This is not the case, however. For one group of CFOMs (N sys M £l o Q| t Q N max> RSE, and M,), a slight to moderate variation in their RSDs with (B/A),, was observed. This can be explained by examining the random error propagation in the general empirical N equation, N sys = C 1 (t R /W a ) 2 /[(B/A) a + C 2 ] (3.9)

PAGE 47

40 Table 3.6. Suggested Chromatographic Measurement Conditions and the Resulting Precision (%RSD) Achieved for t„, W and (B/A) n a a Conditions 1. Chroma togram recording rate: 1 cm/o G (W Q < _> 4.3 cm) 2. Ruler resolution: +0.2 3. Minimum retention distance, (t R ) : 10 cm 4. Minimum peak height, (hp) min : 10 cm Results a b CFOM (a = 0.1) (a = 0.3) (a = 0.5) fe R +0.2 identical identical w a 1 1.0 + 1.0 (B/A) +2.0 +2.5 +3.0 Data obtained from reference 32 and subsequently converted (see Detailed Discussion of Precision) for a = 0.1, 0.5 — results interpolated for a = 0.3. %RSD(t R ) rounded to nearest 0.1%; %RSDs for W (B/A) rounded to nearest 0.25%.

PAGE 48

41 Assuming negligible covariances, RSD(N ) is given by sys RSD(N sys ) = {4[RSD(t R )] 2 + 4[RSD(W a )] 2 + 1 2 RSD[(B/A) a ] 2 [(B/A) a /((B/A) a + C 2 )] 2 } 1/2 (3.10) 3 4 Even when terms 1-3 in eq 3.10 are constant, RSD(N „) will vary sys somewhat with (B/A) a because of term 4. Clearly this variation will be greatest for -(B/A) a < C 2 < 0. Additionally, as C 2 + -(B/A) RSD(N gys ) -*• For C 2 =0, RSD(N sys ) is essentially independent of (B/A) a Finally, for C 2 > 0, a negligible to slight variation of RSD(N s ) with (B/A) a may be observed, depending on the magnitude of terms 1 and 2 relative to the product of terms 3 and 4. Except for eqs 1 and 2(a,b) in Table 3-4, the RSD limits for N M OJ a r t P N sys d h b max RSE, and M., calculated via equations in Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 varied by less than 0.5% for 1.00 <. B/A <. 2.76. The remaining CFOMs (t, t/o q RPL, M,, M 4 ,Y s ,Y e ) comprise a second group whose RSDs are moderate to strong functions of peak shape as Figure 3-1 shows. In every instance the imprecision is largest for the least asymmetric peaks and smallest for the most highly skewed peaks. Analysis of the error propagation equations show that one or more terms within the equations get very large as the peak shapes become symmetric. Why Measure at 10% Peak Height? For reasons listed below, the recommended CFOM equations in Table 3.2 are based on (in addition to t R ) the measurement of W and B/A at 10% peak height rather than at other peak height fractions such as 50%, 30%, or 5%: •--*--—-----

PAGE 49

42 1. Examination of Tables 3.2, 3-3, and 3.4 shows that many CFOM equations at 10$ are olearly superior to the corresponding ones at 30$ and 50$ in terms of a) precision (lowest RSD limits) b) widest working range for equivalent accuracy (e.g., N ) c) simplicity for M~ (path a) 2. The N s equation at 10$ peak height is more accurate for Gaussian and near-Gaussian peaks than other N equations developed at 50$, 30$, or 5$. For example, at B/A = 1 the relative error was +0.6$, +10.0$, +2.0$, and +2.5$, respectively. 3. In a previously reported graphical measurement study (31,32), statistically significant positive and negative biases were detected in the measurement of A Q 5 and B Q 5 respectively, resulting in a consistent underestimation of (B/a) q 5< No such biases were detected for Aq ^ and B Q and only a slight underestimation was observed for (B/A) Q> J. 4. It is likely that RSD(W 0#05 ) > RSD(W 0<1 ), since in going from W Q 1 to W 0.05 the ma S ni tude of the slope of the peak (on either side) decreases much more rapidly than the peak width increases. Thus the precision for the 5$ CFOM equations would be poorer [assuming RSD(Wq Q5 ) contributes substantially to the total uncertainty]. 5. Superior resolution between overlapping peaks is required for measurements at 5$ peak height than at 10$. 6. As exemplified in Figure 3.2 for N Gaussian CFOM equations based on width measurements at 10$ are much less inaccurate (though still exceedingly in error) for asymmetric peaks than the corresponding Gaussian equations at 50$ (shown) and 30$ (not shown). That is, the slope of the RE vs. (B/A) a (shown for a = 0.1) plots is smaller; thus the approximate RE correction function in the denominator of eqs 3.2 and 3.5 (text) will be less sensitive to the measurement imprecision of (B/A) a ). 7. The sensitivity of the relative error (RE) correction functions to the (B/A) a measurement imprecision is only slightly lower at 5$ than at 10$ peak height (see Figure 3.2) and is insufficient to warrant CFOM estimation at 5$. 6. As seen in Table 3.7, the RSE can be calculated much more accurately using width measurements at 10$ than at 50$, 30$, or 5$. In addition, the precision is much better (lower RSD limits) at 10$ than at 50$ or 30$, and is comparable to that at 5$. 9. The empirical asymmetry factor measurement, B/A, was introduced at 10$ peak height rather than at 50$ or 30$ because peak tailing is much more apparent at 10$. Since then almost all empirical measurements of asymmetry have been reported at this peak height fraction; these data will be of little value in later years if the B/A peak height fraction is redefined.

PAGE 50

c V o >% m X3 as *** o •H cd 3 cr +-•> CD cd rH M *• O. tt) C\J a; • c a. c^ H CD G X) H o CD -Q Sh P m G cO IH C O H m •H -P 43 CO CO H CD 3 CD Si cr 03 4-1 CD OJ en CD aO H En

PAGE 51

44 d 5 in o o" >00 1 O O CO i i O J 1 1 1 1 I I u O o o lO aoa*d3 !N30d3d in C\J < m io

PAGE 52

45 Table 3.7. Comparison of the Accuracy and Precision of the fiSE Equations at a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 equation RSE = 1.04 [(B/A) 0#05 r 2 00 RSE = 0.99 C(B/A) Q#10 ] -2.24 RSE = 0.926[(B/A) 0>30 ]3 11 RSE = 0.913[(B/A) 0>5Q ]4 33 #RE limits % RSD -5.0, +4.5 + 4.0 + 2.1 + 4.5 -7.5, +2.3 + 8.0 -9.0, +4.5 + 13.0

PAGE 53

46 10. It is easier to mentally compute \Q% of an arbitrary peak height than 50%, 30%, or 5%. Taken collectively, the above arguments indicate that the best CFOM estimation is obtained from graphical chromatographic measurements at 10% peak height. General Aspects Preliminary mode ling of experimental peaks Chromatographic peaks should be examined for their resemblance to Gaussian, EMG, or other peak shapes, first by visual inspection and then from the asymmetry factor measurement. In the unlikely event that B/A = 1, the validity of the Gaussian model can be checked by comparing the measured peak width ratios W Q>5 :W q.3 :W 0.1 to the theoretically predicted ratios 0.5487 : 0.7231 : 1. For B/A 2 1.09, the validity of the EMG model can be judged by the agreement of values of o Q M 2 and/or x, and t Q determined from both B/A and W a measurements at a = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 (see Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4). For slightly asymmetric chromatographic peaks, the assignment of peak shape models may be ambiguous due to the imprecise measurement of B/A (e.g., Is a peak with B/A = 1.03 0.02 Gaussian?). Insofar as accuracy and precision are concerned, does it matter if EMG-based equations are used with Gaussian peaks or vice-versa? As seen from Table 3.2, the EMG based equations for N M 2 and a Q are accurate to within 1.5%, 1.5%, and 4%, respectively, over the asymmetry range 1.00 < B/A < 1.09. Figure 3.3 shows the accuracy of the Gaussian based equations (a = 0.1) over this same range. Clearly, little error in the estimation of M 2 N sys and a Q will result from peak model misassignments at low asymmetries (1.00 < B/A < 1.09) due to B/A

PAGE 54

T3 a • H .p X) T3 CO CD 3 S -o CT CD S-. CU a cd CO -o a C cd >> cd •H ^H -P CO P CO n 43 3 bO C 03 •H 03 o H •r-l CO CO G CO o X) 3 u c 03 cd a Jj c rH CD 0) cd si a CD -p o -o s •H c •H G rH O G cd G CD CD a > CD H 'O G P C 3 03 O CO H o cd CD CD CD SB CO S ro i^O a) G 3 bO

PAGE 55

48 J i_ i l i I I I i — i — L Q o 10 o in if) cvi o d U0UU3 !N30d3d m CM* i O CD O ro O < m o o

PAGE 56

49 imprecision, though for B/A > 1.04 the EMG equations are more accurate. Furthermore, as seen from Table 3.5, the change in the precision of CFOM estimation resulting from peak model misassignment would be less than 1$. Double-checking the results The universality of the relative error approach (introduced in the Derivations section above) was checked by the independent variation of t Q and Oq over the t Q / a G range of 10 to 5000. The generality was confirmed by identical statistical results (£RELs, etc.) over a given B/A range (e.g., 1.09-2.76) for all CFOMs calculated from this approach. As an additional check on the experimental work, M 5 and N_,,_ were £~ sys calculated by statistical moment analysis (23), using the same to search algorithm as before. The agreement among the true, moment, and manual values for both M 2 and N was within + 1$ for 1.00 < B/A < 2.05 with very little bias present in either approximation. At higher asymmetries (2.05 < B/A < 2.76), the manual values remained within + 1.5$ of the true values, but the corresponding moment values showed a significant positive bias ranging from +1.5$ to +5.5$. An even greater bias of +4.4$ at B/A = 2.05 ( T / a G = 2) reported elsewhere (23) was attributed to arbitrary data truncation. This was probably the source of bias in our statistical moment method as well, but regardless of the source of bias the same conclusion may be drawn: at high asymmetries (2.05 < B/A < 2.76) the manual CFOM equation method is more accurate than the moment method. Working range of the equations The EMG-based equations in Table 3.2 were expected to be accurate over the asymmetry range used for the least squares curve-fitting of the f(B/A) approximations. Thus,

PAGE 57

50 except for eq 8, the accurate working range was thought to be 1.09 < B/A < 2.76. Nevertheless, eqs 1, 2(a,b), 6, 7, and 10 allow accurate estimation of N M 2 t Q N fflax and M 1 respectively, for Gaussian shaped peaks (B/A = 1.00). Although somewhat surprising, this is explained by the near convergence of these EMG equations to Gaussian ones when the substitution B/A = 1.00 is made in the former. The N sys equation in Table 3.2, for example, becomes N sys = l8.53(t R /w 0<1 ) 2 (3.11) which is within +0.6$ of the Gaussian formula Vl = 18 42( V W 0.1 )2 (3.12) CFOM equations could have been developed for asymmetries greater than B/A = 2.76 (T/a Q = 3), but a sacrifice of simplicity, accuracy, or both would have been required. More importantly, however, it was felt that nearly all peaks reported in the literature exhibit B/A's < 2.76. Indeed, a chromatographic system producing peaks with B/A's > 2.76 is operating at a relative system efficiency of less than 10%. When the EMG N s equation was tested for asymmetries higher than those for which it was developed, the $RE varied between -1.5$ and -10$ for 2.77 < B/A < 4.00, compared to the %RE range of +70$, +110$ for the Gaussian 10$ equation (N,, ). w 0. 1 Real versus ideal CFOMs: column characterization Given that peak asymmetry is (almost) always present in any real chromatographic system, N sys' M 2' and fc R ^present the experimentally observed chromatographic efficiency, peak variance, and retention time, respectively. The

PAGE 58

51 corresponding CFOMs N max a^ and t Q represent idealized chromatographic parameters which would describe the system if all sources of asymmetry could be eliminated. If all or nearly all asymmetry is extra-column in origin, then for a given set of conditions fflax i a c and fc G are valid descriptors of the efficiency, bandbroadening, and retention characteristics of the column. Pluralism of the method As might be surmised from Table 3.2, there is more than one way to calculate several of the CFOMs. The variance, for example can be calculated via eq 2a from measurements of w 0.1 and B/A or via e< 3 2b frora fc R and N S ys ( e 3 1 )Generally, CFOM estimates via the "b" equations are simpler, faster, equally precise, but less accurate than estimates via the "a" equations. This trade-off of accuracy for simplicity and speed is slight, however; in most cases much time can be saved with little sacrifice in accuracy if the "b" equations are employed. Only the simplest and most accurate methods are given in Table 3.2. Therefore, while N could be calculated from its components t R a Q and t (see N equation in Table 3-D, this method was not reported since it would be much more time-consuming, tedious, and in all likelihood less accurate and less precise than the N equation in sys Table 3.2, Usefulness of RSE T RPL The relative system efficiency (RSE) and relative plate loss (RPL), two new parameters defined in Table 3.1, are dualistic CFOMs. First, they can be interpreted intuitively as N sys /N max and (N max N sys )/N max> respectively, with a corrective retention factor (t Q /t R ) 2 applied. Alternatively, RSE and RPL can be viewed as the relative contributions of symmetrical ( a Q 2 ) and

PAGE 59

52 asymmetrical (t ) band-broadening processes to the total system bandbroadening (M 2 the total variance). If (t G /t R ) 2 can be neglected because of its nearness to unity, the former intuitive expressions for RSE and RPL become particularly useful. For example, the best possible efficiency, N max can be related very simply to the true chromatographic efficiency, N sys by N max = *sys /RSE (3.13) In fact, this approximation is good to within + 2% with an RSD limit of + 5% (for 1.00 < B/A < 2.76) whenever N „ (calculated via eq 3.13) > 4000. Thus, eq 3.13 can serve as a useful estimation of S__„ for HldA moderate to high efficiency chromatographic systems. Although B/A, RSE, and RPL are mutually interdependent (i.e., once B/A has been measured RSE and RPL may be calculated), the specification of RSE, RPL, or both in addition to the reporting of B/A greatly enhances the qualitative description of a chromatographic system. Thus, while B/A = 1.30 indicates that a given peak is asymmetric, the corresponding RSE = 55$ or RPL = H5% provides a clearer indication of the actual efficiency and how much room for improvement exists. Figure 3.4 shows the exponential-like relationship of RSE and RPL with B/A. Chromatographic systems with asymmetries of 1.00 and 1.10 are operating at much different relative efficiencies, while two systems operating at B/A = 2.00 and 2.10 are realizing nearly the same relative efficiencies. Alternative derivations Two other approaches for deriving CFOM equations were not as successful as that already described. In the first attempt, a modification of the Carr graphical method, three universal calibration curves were approximated by linear or quadratic

PAGE 60

53 RPL RSE B/A Figure 3.4. Relative system efficiency, RSE, and relative plate loss, RPL, for ideal and skewed peaks.

PAGE 61

54 polynomials. This approach yielded equations for a Q x t Q and the remaining CFOMs in terms of W Q>1> B/A, and t R but was unsatisfactory for three reasons: a) an accurate but simple approximation of t/a„ in u terms of B/A cannot be obtained for the range 1.00 < B/A < 2.76 because the relationship between them changes at B/A = 1.36 from a decidedly nonlinear one to an almost perfectly linear one; b) the errors introduced by the polynomial approximations tend to accumulate slightly rather than cancel; and c) the equations derived for all the CFOMs except x, o G and t Q are extremely unwieldly, e.g., eq 3.14 below, N sys = (t fi /w 0>1 ) 2 [ g (B/A)/h(B/A)] (3.14) where g and h are second degree polynomials of B/A. A variation of this same approach in which B/A was substituted for the original abscissa x /q in the latter two calibration curves made little difference. A second attempt, a variation of the relative error {RE) approach utilizing (B A) as the approximation G in eq 3.5 for t, failed because the simplest f(B/A) approximation required for sufficient accuracy was too complex. CFOM units. For ease of interlaboratory comparison, all nonunitless CFOMs should be reported in time units; if units of length are chosen instead, the recorder chart speed should be specified to permit conversion to time units.

PAGE 62

55 Conclusion Superiority of EMG-based Equations Although Gaussian-based equations are somewhat simpler than their EMG counterparts in Table 3.2 (compare eq 3.11, text with eq 1, Table 3.2), the EMG equations are clearly superior because with comparable precision (see Table 3.5) they are equally accurate for Gaussian (or near-Gaussian) peaks and considerably more accurate for skewed (EMG) chromatographic peaks.

PAGE 63

CHAPTER 4 CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMIT OF DETECTION IN CHROMATOGRAPHY Introduction In this chapter, the focus is on eliminating the confusion surrounding the limit of detection (LOD) in chromatography. Some prior knowledge of the LOD concept is assumed. This discussion primarily applies to both gas and liquid chromatography using concentration or mass sensitive detectors whose output is measured as peak height, though two sections (Eliminating Mistak en Identitiaa and Using the Correct Units 1 apply to analyses using peak area as well. Ideal linear elution, i.e., Gaussian peak profiles, is assumed though moderate deviations can be tolerated,, Identifying Current Problems Literature Survey Results Initially, to determine the sources of discrepancy in chromatographic detection limits, we conducted a limited survey of analytical textbooks, chromatographic monographs, and the primary chromatographic literature. This survey revealed two mistakes of omission, as well as four major sources of discrepancies. All six are summarized in Table 4.1. The first two problems are blatant omissions which discredit the work reported, at least to some degree. However, they can be eliminated if more attention is given during manuscript preparation, and thus may be dismissed without further discussion. The 56

PAGE 64

57 >> ft CIS P • a CO o B CD G o T3 CO 5 cd M H > G a CO 60 rH cd Q o 0) cd .G o h G co q P J jO -P ca cd o co 3 • G CD C CD C CD x: CO a o O a -P •H cd o cd •H p 3 j G -P cd £j -P P cd G o ft CO CD o CD •H J3 c •H G CD O CO +3 -H Cm O > g >> •H •H cd O H G T3 -P -P jC o cd o CD co cd C Cm CO 3 G CO ^^ cd 3 1-? p G C5 C c CD o 0) O CO CO o CD -P J o H CD -P c CJ *~— C cd -P •H a a a O G •H O CD G o cd C •H 4J a G o O o G O CO •H cd G cd H CO x; Cm a o Cm a +5 -.H bO CD CD o rH O O a 3 X3 G -P o a) o O o G -P CO •H -p G] CO CD H 4-> jC 0) Cm -4-> C H 43 rH •H a X3 O X5 -P G cd *• •P o J3 3 G Ch co -o a Cm -P bO o eu CD o o SS H c O M P •p 3 •H -p -p cd G ~ 60 H cd •H S 4-S O T3 CD 3 a a s CO ft CD CD 0) o H •H -P G T3 CO -p G rH a t, Eh 3 CD 3 G X3 O CO O O CD -P ft CO 3 CD a ,G o CD Cm G CD rH -P c U G O a> 3 G cd G X! CD CD O CD CD +J 1, G CO G > •H CD a) CO rH CD 2 3 3 cd 3 CD a 3 CO 4) co CO o CO -p S .p P 4J e -P ca g (1) •H H a •H .c o t-i a e CD a a -P Cm .o H •h o o •H o rH H G j rH co -a g g C O o >> G -P CD O -P o O G o cd a •H •H Q cd -H Cm 3 • *3 -P O G -P Cm O O J •P O CD O • CO CD •H CD Q ^T -p -P (D £) P CD cd 'a )

PAGE 65

58 remaining four problems (3-6 in Table 4.1) comprise the major sources of discrepancy in chromatographic detection limits, and are the topics to be addressed in this report. Numerical Example Before proceeding, however, a numerical example which incorporates problems 4-6 (see Table 4.1) will be given. This example will demonstrate to the reader the magnitude of these problems and will facilitate later discussion. Though designed with liquid chromatography in mind, the points made by this example apply equally well to gas chromatography The initial assumptions, experimental conditions, and results of this example are shown in Table 4.2. To avoid the confusion which it would certainly have caused, problem #3 of Table 4.1 was not incorporated into this example. If it had been, the results might have been even more shocking. Nevertheless, as seen in the bottom row of Table 4.2, the LODs for the two systems employing identical detectors differ by three and one-half orders of magnitude! Though a detailed explanation of this example is beyond the scope of the present discussion, the huge discrepancy in the two LODs will be reconciled after the last three problems in Table 4.2 are solved. This example should awaken the reader to the seriousness of these problems and demonstrate why they must be eliminated if the chromatographic LOD is to be a meaningful figure of merit.

PAGE 66

59 Table 4.2. Example of widely differing detection limits Assumptions 1, Liquid chromatograph with UV absorbance detector 2. beer's Law applies, i.e., A = ebc. 3. Analytical sensitivity, S = eb = 10,000 AU L mol 4. Peak to peak noise, N D D = 2 x 10"^ AU 5. Root mean square noise, N = 1/5 N -1 Variables Experiment A Experiment ,B V inj 5 uL 20 uL LOD defn 10 HL _/S P-P 3 N /S J rms V M (mL) 2.5 0.5 k 10 3 N (plates) 1000 10,000 Results LODs reported 8.7 x 10" 6 M log (L0D A /L0D B ) = 3.5 orders of magnitude difference! 3.0 x 10" 9 M

PAGE 67

60 Solving the Problems Eliminating Mistaken Identities The limit of detection has unfortunately been confused with three other concepts—particularly the (minimum) detectability— which are also used in characterizing chromatographic trace analyses. Table 4.3 includes symbols and definitions for all four of these concepts. One reason that the LOD is confused with the other concepts in Table 4.3, particularly the MD, is the redundancy in nomenclature of the detection limit and the MD, as evidenced by the partial, but representative list of (apparent) synonyms for these concepts (shown in Table 4.3) which appear frequently in the literature. In general, redundant terminology in science only serves to confuse. This is especially true when the apparent synonyms for different concepts are themselves quite similar. The use of these apparent synonyms should be discontinued immediately. Even if the confusion resulting from the redundant terminology could be eliminated, the LOD might still be confused with the MD by the apprentice chromatographer because their definitions, as shown in Table 4.3 and in eqs 4.1 and 4.2, are so similar in appearance (cf. meaning, however). LOD = arbitrary detector signal level/S (4.1) MD = arbitrary detector signal level/S d (4.2) £et despite their similarities, the LOD and MD are distinct concepts, as a closer scrutiny of Table 4.3 shows. The LOD is a general concept characterizing any overall trace analytical procedure consisting of one or more steps, whereas the MD is a specific term characterizing

PAGE 68

61 -P G CO XI -P M x) •H CD -P •H G G > •rH C -H -p 3 -H X 3 3 CO o bO to CO cd 3 CO +s O CD G O, a) G G CO CD XJ > CD (0 X -r-l a, G -P Q. -P O CD 03 3 •H c -p X XI > G -p >> a> •H -P -H bO CD 3 rH c o -P 3 c x Q. cfl cfl O •r4 a •H -P -P G o G CO -P T3 co G 3 CO a G 3 CD co a O O -p CD O O CO O H Cm o <-i CO 3 Q. G P O S3 CO •o tin cd rH -P O rH O CD S-. CO r-V •rH •P CO G •P T3 p a cd cd .p C G -P >, CD G ho e -p >> 3 bO G rH G CD H -r-i >) >>rH •H -H CO G V CO +> jB rH CO s CO C CD C o. CO C co CO O O 1 -P cfl a co 1 CD CO O •H G CO CD -P Cm -H CD G to c rH >> o -o CD > 3 • o Cm CD X CD ^\ rH G \ >, -p O > CO > CO X CD X 3 -P rH CO •H -P G G 3 Xi CO CD G CD a -P bQ o 3 CO rH -P 3 -P o G CD O > a CO G G -P 3 G 3 CO •P •H G 3 o e X! -P a c G x o CD •H G G CD 3 Q. O -H •H •H a c a c O CD CD H CO a rH CO O -r-l •H -p a G O -p -p CO CD •iH JJ> >> 8 o H c CO G •* o G •P -p CD 4J o G CD >> G 3 CO -P G ~ -P G G C3 o P o -p O T3 G -H •H n-t CD O O o G •H CD CD •P G CO CD X> ^w' -P o co CD CD -P X O C 3 -P > o CO h O rH C •P O CD s(D CD CD rH co G X CO C G O CD rH XI G -P X3 O CO 3 o Q c c O •P O CD H O G cr rH O -H CD iH "O to O Ch jJ> rH o CD rH HJ> J3 C CO CI) O CO CO rH X Cm cfl CO cfl -P CO -P G O G X cd O G a CO CD 3 •P H a o CO -p -P X rH a> CD G rH c -P 3 -P c o C M 3 o rH o CD CD >v e o O CD CD CD 3 o CO rH X CO Q, o H •H CD CO J-> a. O o XI G (0 -P £> O G CO G -P Cfl CD O G G CO H 8 -H CO <-{ O G •rH CD CD X) r-i O G CO 3 CO O CO a xt G CO O *J CO 1 a 3 a >> i a 3 a J 8 g =t •H x •H c a. G a a> r™\ •H >, cfl •H ,— v >, > CO cfl j > o +5 '— _p H •*s i -P -p CO •H rH i >, c CD G •H a •iH -p Q. CO O -P CO CO o XI cfl •H •H -H CO C G (0 CO > •P S 8 (D X -P a •H O iH >> CO O o >> -P 0) rH C CD c •rH -p o ^*v O 4J --> o CO CD CD G s <*-> &o -P CD Q G G CO X) O >^ rH -w x) S >, CD CD •iH CO C0 o CO CO X ^_3 > O 8 CD -P o -P (D Li rH CD H G o H X) CO CO a. a CO CD CD a Cv G CO •rH D. -P CO •rH G O, CO 3 a. CD 3 rH O cd CO E Cfl XI CD X e CD • ca *™ C\J P ro =r

PAGE 69

62 one step in a chromatographic analysis: detection. For example, the LOD must, by definition, include the chromatographic dilution of the analyte, whereas the MD cannot. Furthermore, the LOD is measured experimentally with a complete chromatographic system (including the column) under the specific conditions of a given trace analysis; the MD, in contrast, is measured without a column under conditions that may or may not correspond to those of the analysis. The two concepts may also be distinguished mathematically. Assuming an analytical signal in terms of peak height, the relationship for a concentration sensitive chromatographic system is (36) LOD = (2tt) 1/2 [V M (l+k)/N 1/2 ] b MD (4.3) where V M represents the corrected gas holdup volume in GC and the column void volume in LC; k is the capacity factor; N is the number of theoretical plates; and b is a unitless parameter which permits the LOD and the MD to be defined independently of one another. For a mass sensitive chromatographic system, the relationship between the LOD and the MD is (37) LOD = (2tt) 1/2 [t M (1+k)/N 1/2 ] b MD (4.4) where t M is the retention time of an unretained solute, corrected for gas compressibility in GC. One final difference should be noted: An arbitrary detector signal level of twice the peak-to-peak detector noise has been universally agreed upon for MD calculations (in practice, at least). No such consensus exists for the LOD.

PAGE 70

63 Choosing a Model As discussed earlier, the LOD may be defined in terms of an arbitrary signal-to-noise (S/l\l) level. In our survey of the chromatographic trace analysis literature, we found a multitude of arbitrary S/N levels used, ranging from 2 to 10. To further complicate matters, neither the measures of the signal (peak height, peak area, etc.) nor the noise (peak-to-peak, root mean square, etc.) were specified in many instances. These inconsistencies and ambiguities are not surprising since (to our knowledge) no standard model for the LOD has ever been proposed, much less adopted, by any recognized organization for the field of x chromatography! We note specifically the omission of an LOD definition in chromatography by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and by IUPAC in their respective publications on gas and/or liquid chromatography nomenclature (38-41 ) The omission by these and other organizations is also substantiated in two reviews (42,43). More importantly, however, the above inconsistencies and ambiguities can be eliminated completely if a clearly stated LOD model is adopted. Therefore the adoption of, with minor reinterpretation, the IUPAC model for spectrochemical analysis (44) or a model based on first order error propagation (10) is proposed. These models are given in eqs 4.5a and 4.5b, respectively, LOD = 3s B /S (4.5a) (The model which the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted in 1975 (44) was chosen specifically for spectrochemical analysis. Though the ACS Subcommittee on Environmental Chemistry reaffirmed this model in 1980 (45), it did so for the area of environmental chemistry and not specifically for the field of chromatography.)

PAGE 71

64 LOD = 3[s B 2 + Si 2 + (i/S) 2 s s 2 ] 1/2 /S (4.5b) where S, i, s s and s j are the analytical sensitivity (slope), intercept, and their respective standard deviations of the calibration curve obtained via linear regression; and s B is the standard deviation, calculated from 20 or more measurements of the blank signal. The factor of 3 in the numerator of the right hand expressions of eqs 4.5a and 4.5b gives a practical confidence level of 90$ to 99.7$, depending on the probability distribution of the blank signal and the accuracy of s B (10,44,46). Though smaller or larger factors could be used instead of 3, the resulting confidence levels would be too low or too high for practical use in most cases. Both the original proponents of these models (10,44) and others (46) strongly recommend the use of the factor 3. This author concurs. Both models are proposed for adoption because it seems preferable to let the chromatography community judge their respective merits. Indeed, strong arguments can be made for each. The IUPAC model, on the one hand, is computationally simpler and has already been employed, though infrequently, in the chromatographic literature. On the other hand, the error propagation model is not really all that complicated; many pocket calculators with linear regression capability can be easily programmed for the error propagation model. Furthermore, the error propagation LOD model takes uncertainties of the slope and intercept of the calibration curve into account, resulting in a more realistic numerical estimate. Interpretation The IUPAC and error propagation LOD models were developed originally for spectroscopic trace analysis. Nearly all the

PAGE 72

65 associated concepts, [e.g., the calibration curve, the sample (analyte + matrix), etc.] have identical, straightforward interpretations in chromatography. One aspect, however, does not: the measurement of s D a Intuitively it is clear that the chromatographic baseline is somehow analogous to the blank signal in spectroscopy. We can now refer to s B as the standard deviation of the chromatographic baseline (noise). The measurement of Sg remains unclear, however. One possible procedure would be to estimate Sg from 20 or more measurements of only that portion of the baseline observed at the analyte' s retention time in the absence of the analyte (when a blank solution is injected). This is directly analogous to the measurement of the blank signal (at the analytical wavelength) in spectroscopy. Such a literal procedure would require at least 20 injections of blank solution (20 blank chromatograms!) and is obviously too impractical: 1. It would be much too time consuming! 2. It may require too much blank solution. 3. Variables which affect retention would require strict control. 4. The retention time of the analyte would need to be known very precisely. A much more practical procedure becomes apparent if one remembers that the standard deviation (root mean square) of a random (periodic) signal can be closely approximated by the quotient of the range (peakto-peak displacement) and a parameter, p, dependent on the type of signal, i.e., Signal = ran §e/p (4.6a) For the measurement of s B it should be noted that the range is equivalent to the peak-to-peak noise of the baseline, N if the latter is measured over a sufficiently wide region of the chromatogram which includes the analyte peak. Additionally, the baseline usually

PAGE 73

66 results from a normally distributed, random signal for which p = 5. Thus in most oases the standard deviation of the chromatographic baseline, Sg, can be estimated from one-fifth of the peak-to-peak noise, i.e. S B = N p-P /5 (4 6b) Two additional comments regarding the practical procedure for measuring Sg should be noted: 1. It is recommended that the "sufficiently wide region of the chroma togram" be at least as wide as 20 base widths of the analyte peak. 2. If systematic fluctuations in the baseline are present, a value (of p) less than 5 should be used in eq 4.6b. If, for example, a periodic triangular baseline (possibly resulting from flow pulsations in the detector cell due to an insufficiently dampened solvent delivery system) is observed, then p = 3.5 and s B = N /3.5. Using the Correct Units A common misconception about chromatographic LODs is that they can be reported in units of concentration rather than amount. The fallacy of this assumption will be shown below. Dimensional analysis One way of deducing the correct units of the chromatographic LOD is by dimensional analysis. Referring to the definition of the MD in Table 4.2, it is clear that if the appropriate units of concentration and mass flux are used for the MD in eqs 4.3 and 4.4 for the concentration sensitive and mass sensitive detector cases, respectively, the units for the LOD in eqs 4.3 and 4.4 must be in terms of an amount (e.g., moles, grams, or some multiple thereof). Another approach via dimensional analysis is to consider the right hand expression of eq 4.1. Given the definition for the analytical sensitivity, it is clear that the units for this term (denominator of

PAGE 74

67 eq 4.1) should be the quotient of the units of the measured signal and the units of the independent variable. Therefore, since the units for the noise expression (numerator of eq 4.1) are the same as those for the measured signal, the units for the detection limit should be the same as the units of the independent variable of the calibration curve. Thus, to decide which units are correct for the LOD, we need only to identify the units of the independent variable of the calibration curve, i.e., to determine whether the chromatographic signal depends on the concentration or amount of analyte injected. Equations 4.7 and 4.8 (36,37) below show that the signal (peak height, hp) is directly proportional to the maximum concentration, C max det' or ^ he max imum flux, F max 1/2 /Vr (4.7) h P F max,det = ^inj ""* ^ U2 /H (4.8) Thus the same conclusion is reached once again: The chromatographic LOD must be given in units of amount, i.e., in moles, grams, or some fraction thereof. Identifying faulty logic Despite these convincing arguments, some researchers insist on reporting their chromatographic LODs in concentration units. Their rationale might be as follows: 1. The amount of analyte injected, Q. n i' is the product of the concentration of analyte in the sample, C, ,, and the volume of sample injected, ^ inj = C inj V inj <*•

PAGE 75

68 2. From eq 4.9 it is clear that the concentration of analyte injected, C inj' is direc tly proportional to the amount of analyte injected. C inj = W V inj (4 10) 3. Therefore the relative LOD (in units of concentration), C,, is proportional to the true, absolute LOD, q L (in units of amount). C L = 0L /V inj (*.") Though reached in a straightforward manner, the conclusion stated above is nevertheless false. The error in reasoning is best described as an improper or incomplete analogy. In going from a true expression, eq 4.10, to a false statement, eq 4.11, C. and q. were replaced by mj inj r J two limiting quantities C L and q L respectively. No analogous substitution was made for V in however, and therein lies the error. V inj may vary continuously over < V inj < V inj>max where V inj|fflax is some limiting, maximum injection volume to be discussed momentarily. Unless V. nj = V inj)fflax eq 4.11 is false. A numerical example will help demonstrate the absurdity of eq 4.11. Suppose the true, absolute LOD (q L ) for analyte X had 'been determined independently by two scientists using the same LC system to be 1 x 10~ 12 mol. If the scientists had used different injection volumes of 5 uL and 50 uL, according to eq 4.11 the relative LODs (C L 's) for the same chromatographic system would be 2 x 10" 6 M and 2 x 10" 7 M, respectively. Clearly eq 4.11 is inappropriate. The correct expression, eq 4.12 below, is obtained by using V inj,max in Place of V in j But this expression is of little value because of the difficulty in obtaining a consistent, precise estimate of V. in j ,max" C L = L /V inj,max < 4 12 >

PAGE 76

69 Problems with estimating the maximum injection volume Experimentally, Vj_ n -j max an be determined by increasing V. ., until column overloading or some other adverse phenomenon is observed. This operational definition of V in max is unsatisfactory, however, because the injection volume at which these events occur is too dependent on the experimental conditions, e.g., the sample matrix, the percent loading of the column. Alternatively, numerous theoretical expressions are available for the estimation of V in max Though many are overly specific, a few are completely general. Perhaps the best is one which relates Vto the maximum tolerable degradation in resolution (5, p. 289). Our extension of this expression is reported below as eq 4.13, and is derived in Appendix C. V inj,max = 2 (3) 1/2 (y 2 + 2y) 1/2 V M (1 + k)/N 1/2 (4.13a) where y = the maximum tolerable loss in resolution due to a finite injection volume. Another expression based on the same criterion (maximum tolerable loss in resolution) but derived from slightly different assumptions (36) is shown in eq 4.13b V inj,max = < 2K) V M (1 + *)/N 1/2 (4.13b) where K is a parameter characteristic of the method of injection; practical values of K range from 2 to 3.5 (ideal plug injection). Comparison of eqs 4.13a and 4.13b reveals one of the problems with theoretical estimates of V^ max : due to their extreme dependency on the criterion selected and/or the assumptions of the derivation, theoretical estimates of V i max are extremely inconsistent.

PAGE 77

70 Another problem with these and other general expressions is that V inj max is ni S nl y dependent on the value of some arbitrary parameter, y in this example (eqs 4.13a and 4.13b). If y = 0.04 (k% loss in resolution), eq 4.13a becomes V= V, .( 1 + k)/N 1/2 (4 14) v mj,max >r + K;/w ^ ,l4 If y were chosen to be 0.01 or 0.10, then V _„„ would be equal to LI I J j ludX approximately half or one and one-half times the value predicted by eq 4.14. Since universal agreement on the value of y or some other parameter is unlikely, the theoretical methods for estimating V mov XII J y ul3-X will continue to be imprecise. Summary For all the reasons discussed above, chromatographic LODs should always be reported in units of amount, not concentration. Converting to Chromatographic Reference Conditions As seen from eqs 4.3 and 4.4, the LOD depends not only on the detector characteristics (MD) but also on three chromatographic parameters [k, N, and V^ (or t M )] which characterize the column and the solute. In this section a method is proposed for taking the effects of these parameters into account, thereby solving the final problem associated with the chromatographic LOD (see Table 4.1). Gaussian elution profiles are assumed, though slight to moderate deviations can be tolerated. B'or a concentration sensitive detector, the relationship between the LOD and the chromatographic parameters is given by q L = d V M (1+k)/N 1/2 (4.15) where terms of eq 4.3 [(2ir) 1/2 b, MD] have been incorporated into a

PAGE 78

71 single proportionality constant, d. Alternatively, since V„ = V.,(1 + k) R "M v and N = (V^c^) 2 we may write q L = d V R /N 1/2 (4.16) or q L = d a y (4.17) where V R is the retention volume (corrected for compressibility in GC) and cfy is the bandwidth of the chromatographic peak, in volume units. Equations 4.15-4.17 are equivalent, and any one of them may be used to derive an expression which accounts for the effects of these chromatographic parameters on the LOD. For simplicity, we use eq 4.17. Consider a LOD, q L1 obtained under one set of chromatographic conditions, i.e., o y = a v1< By analogy with eq 4.17, Q L 1 = da V1 ( 4 18 ) Likewise, for a LOD, q L2 obtained under a second set of chromatographic conditions, %2 = da V2 (4.19) Dividing eq 4.19 by eq 4.18 and solving for q L2 yields ^L2 = ^ G V2 /a V1 ] QL1 (4.20a) which can also be written as q L2 = CV R2 /V R1 ] tN 1 /N 2 ] 1/2 q L1 (4.20b) or q L2 LV M2 /V M1 ] [(k 2 + 1)/(k 1 + 1)] [N^Ng] 172 q L1 (4.20c) Equations 4.20a-4.20c are important for two reasons: First, they can be used to predict the change in the detection limit when switching

PAGE 79

72 from one set of chromatographic conditions to another. Thus they are useful to the analyst interested in lowering the detection limits via improvements in the chromatographic (rather than the detection) aspects of the trace analysis. It should be noted, however, that the detection limits cannot be lowered infinitely by such improvements. Eventually the analysis will be optimized to the point where further improvements in the chromatographic aspects will necessitate a reduction in sample volume which offsets the chromatographic improvements (36). Of course, in situations where very little sample is available, this reduction in sample size while maintaining a constant detection limit will be helpful. Second, eqs 4.20a-4.20c can be used to compare detection limits obtained under different chromatographic conditions (bandwidths) Consider two such detection limits obtained using different concentration sensitive detectors. These detection limits can be compared only after one of the two detection limits is converted from its present value obtained under a certain chromatographic bandwidth (set of conditions) to a value corresponding to the bandwidth of the other LODj, or after both LODs are converted to values corresponding to a third bandwidth. Note that the latter would require an additional conversion. Whichever way is chosen, it should be recognized that the final bandwidth (set of chromatographic conditions) chosen in the LOD conversion procedure serves as a reference state and that the initial bandwidth(s) is(are) by definition experimental states. Thus from eq 4.20a we may write <*L,ref = £a v>ref /a Vjexp ] q L ,exp ( 4 21 >

PAGE 80

73 where the subscripts "ref" and "exp" refer to reference and experimental, respectively. Similar equations resulting from the incorporation of this notation into eqs 4.20b and 4.20c are easily inferred. The above derivation can be repeated in an analogous fashion for the case of mass sensitive detectors. The result is *L,ref = [a t,ref /a t,exp ] ^L,ex P -.22) where a t is the bandwidth of the peak in time units. Given eqs 4.21 and 4.22, the analyst now has a method for comparing detection limits obtained under different chromatographic conditions (states). Given two or more LODs measured under different chromatographic states, the analyst merely converts all of them to values corresponding to a single, arbitrary, reference state. Though the choice of the reference state is arbitrary, the selection of the reference state is nevertheless important. For example, it would be counterproductive for an analyst to employ a different chromatographic reference state each time a new group of experimental LODs (measured under different experimental states) were to be compared, since LODs in separate groups could not be compared if this was done. For similar reasons, it would also be counterproductive if each analyst or group of analysts used different reference states. On the other hand, the reference states by definition must be different for concentration sensitive and mass sensitive chromatographic systems. And in addition, typical chromatographic states (bandwidths) vary considerably in liquid chromatography (LC), packed column gas chromatography (PGC), and open tubular gas chromatography (OTGC).

PAGE 81

74 The logical compromise which is proposed is a fixed reference state (bandwidth) to be used exclusively for each of the three chromatographic areas (LC, PGC, and OTGC) in each of the two detector categories [concentration sensitive (eq 4.20) or mass sensitive (eq 4.21)], giving a total of six fixed references states. Furthermore, it is proposed that the LODs resulting from the conversion to these fixed reference states be referred to as standardized chromatographic LODs. To emphasize this, eqs 4.21 and 4.22 may be rewritten as a L,std = [G V,ref /G V,exp ] a L,exp (4 2 3) and q L,std = K,ref /a t,expJ ^L,exp ^24 ) respectively, where the standardized LODs are indicated by the subscript "std". Advantages of the chromatographic reference state concept and the resulting standardized chromatographic LODs If the values for the reference states are chosen judiciously, the resulting standardized LODs will be superior to experimental (hereafter termed conventional ) LODs in several ways: First, standardized LODs generally represent a more realistic measure of the trace analysis capabilities of a given chromatographic system, thus permitting an analyst to decide whether or not a particular application reported in the literature will be feasible with his or her system. Conventional LODs, on the other hand, may be very misleading. As evidenced in the literature, many trace analyses have been performed using chromatographic systems which have only been partially optimized, if at all. As a result, unusually pessimistic (very high) LODs are obtained. In contrast, some overly optimistic (very low) LODs have been

PAGE 82

75 reported in some instances where the particular chromatographic systems have been optimized more than the typical system could have been. Second, the use of standardized LODs permits a fair comparison of trace analysis chromatographic systems in different areas, e.g., OTGC vs. LC, or with different types of detectors (mass vs. concentration sensitive). Such a comparison is not valid if conventional LODs are used, even within a given area using the same type of detector. Third, the standardized LOD facilitates the prediction of the value of the LOD under experimental chromatographic conditions. Rearranging eqs 4.23 and 4.24, one obtains %,exp = [a V,exp /a V,ref ] ^L,std ( 4 -25) &nd q L,exp = [G t,exp /a t,refJ ^L,std ^.26) Assuming q LjStd has been reported, one merely needs to substitute values for a V,exp (or Vexp) in e 3 4 -25 r *• 26 in order to calculate q r Fourth, the standardized LOD can serve not only as a figure of merit for the overall chromatographic analysis, but as a figure of merit for the detector as well. The need for the minimum detectability (MD) as a separate parameter (and hence, the need for a detector calibration curve) would therefore be eliminated, resulting in a considerable savings of time. Numerically defining the refere nce states Values for the proposed chromatographic reference states (bandwidths) were determined by assigning values to the component parameters [V [v] (or t M ) k and N] and then calculating the reference bandwidths using eq 4.27 or 4.28: a V,ref = V M,ref (1 + k ref )/(N ref )1/2 ^2 7)

PAGE 83

76 CT t,ref = ^.ref + k ref )/(N ref )1/2 (4.28) The reference values for the individual parameters were selected in accordance with one or more of the following criteria: 1. The value represents an intermediate chromatographic performance which is easily achieved except under unusual circumstances. 2. The value falls within a range of values reported directly in the scientific and trade literature. 3. The value falls within a range of values calculated from column manufacturer specifications. 4. The value falls within a previously recommended range [k only— see ref 12, p. 67]. The values selected for the chromatographic bandwidth component parameters are given in Table 4.4. The resulting reference states and corresponding standardized LOD equations are shown in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 and the advantages enumerated earlier conveniently summarize the bulk of the material presented in this section. Only one additional point needs to be made: non-standard (experimental) bandwidths are best measured directly using equations such as G = V 4 (4.29) r a G = W 0<1 /4.292 (4 >30) where W fa and W Q#1 represent the base width and the width at 10% peak height, in units of volume or time, whichever is appropriate. Alternatively, the bandwidths can be calculated from their component parameters, but this is disadvantageous in two respects. First, it requires at least two measurements instead of one. Second, different expressions and/or different interpretations are required for gradient (temperature or mobile phase) elution conditions.

PAGE 84

77 Table 4.4. Proposed values for the component parameters of the chromatographic reference states parameter LC PGC OTGC k ref N ref 10,000 V M>ref (mL) ^.ref^ 1 "') 1 10,000 62,500 3 2 0.3 1.3

PAGE 85

78 Table 4.5. Proposed standardized LOD equations and the corresponding chromatographic reference states q L,std = tCT V,ref /a V,exp ] q L,exp concentration sensitive detector q L,std = ta t,ref /CT t,exp ] q L,exp mass sensitive detector LC PGC OTGC V,ref (mL) 0.05 0.15 0.04 ^.ref^ 111 -) 0.05 0.015 0.026

PAGE 86

79 The Numerical Example Revisited We return to our hypothetical LOD example (Table 4.2 and associated text) to reconcile the large differences in the reported detection limits. Recall that since identical chromatographic detectors were employed, the huge discrepancies were attributed solely to problems 4-6 of Table 4.1. By eliminating these problems one at a time, obtaining identical detection limits at the conclusion, this claim will now be proven. The reconciliation is summarized in Table 4.6, though readers who wish to perform the calculations will need to refer to conditions specified in Table 4.2. The progress of the LOD reconciliation may be noted by inspecting either the LOD values themselves in the second and third columns, or their ratio given in the fourth column, in orders of magnitude. The degrees to which the given problems are responsible for the initial discrepancy between the LODs are shown in the fifth column; they are obtained by subtracting successive values in the adjacent column. Three steps were performed in the reconciliation. First, the LOD values reported incorrectly in units of concentration (mol L" 1 ) are converted to the appropriate units of amount (mol) by multiplying by the corresponding sample injection volumes (V in j's). Second, these unitcorrected LODs are then converted to values consistent with the IUPAC model previously discussed (q L = 3 s B /S). For case A, since N = 5s R (as discussed earlier in Choosing a Model ), the LOD must be reduced by a factor of 50/3. For case B, since N rms = s B no adjustment is necessary. Finally, the IUPAC consistent LOD values are converted to

PAGE 87

80 Table 4.6. Reconciling the differences in the detection limits from the numerical example in Table 4.2 Step LOD, L0D t log \ L0 V log 0. Initial 1 Amount 8.7 x 10 -6 H 3.0 x 10~ 9 M 44 pmol 2. IUPAC def'n 2.6 pmol 3. q L)Std 150 fmol 60 fmol 60 fmol 150 fmol 3.5 2.9 1.6 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.6

PAGE 88

81 standardized LODs, thereby adjusting for differences in the experimental chromatographic conditions (bandwidths, or states). As 3een in Table 4.6, the discrepancy between the LODs is reduced significantly with every successive stage. It should be noted that the largest source of discrepancy is due to differences in the experimental chromatographic conditions (bandwidths). This demonstrates the need for a standardized chromatographic limit of detection. Finally, the LODs in the bottom row of Table 4.6 are identical, indicating that the reconciliation has been completely successful. Conclusion Meaningful chromatographic detection limits can be obtained only if careful attention is paid to the application of the principles which have been discussed: 1. The limit of detection (LOD) should not be confused with the (analytical) sensitivity (S), the minimum detectability (MD), or the detector sensitivity (S,). 2. The experimentally observed LODs should be calculated using the IUPAC and/or the error propagation model(s). The calibration curve should be constructed from a plot of signal versus amount (not concentration!) of analyte injected, thus insuring that the resulting LODs will be in units of amount (not concentration!). 3. If obtained under non-standard conditions, the detection limits can be standardized using the equations in Table 4.5. Standardized chromatographic LODs are superior to their conventional (nonstandardized) counterparts for several reasons, in particular because they permit the (valid) comparison of trace analysis chromatographic systems in different areas (LC, PGC, and OTGC) and/or with different types of detectors (mass and concentration sensitive).

PAGE 89

CHAPTER 5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK The results of this work should facilitate and encourage the study of a number of related and unrelated topics. A few examples are given below. With regard to the standardized chromatographic LOD concept introduced in Chapter 4, if open tubular liquid chromatograpy ever comes of age, it will be desirable to extend the LOD concept to this area by defining two additional reference states (bandwidths) The successful generation of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) function by microcomputer and subsequent measurement of the associated universal data should encourage others to use this realistic model in related or unrelated modeling studies. One project which has already been suggested by Kirkland et al. (23) is the development of a chromatographic resolution function (equation) which is applicable to skewed peaks as well as to ideal ones. The equations recommended in Chapter 3 for the characterization of skewed (EMG) and Gaussian peaks could be tested on analomous peaks resulting from column overloading, nonlinear distribution isotherms, and other sources of analomous peak distortion. Since the graphical deconvolution of the symmetric (^q 2 ) and asymmetric (t ) sources of band broadening is now possible via eqs 3 and 4 in Table 3.2, the next step would be the development of methods for measuring the individual components of ov. and i 82

PAGE 90

83 And finally, the relative error (fi£) approach used so successfully in the derivation of the equations in Chapter 3 is completely general and should be considered by other scientists for any semi-empirical modeling in their fields.

PAGE 91

APPENDIX A— DISCUSSION AND LISTING OF THE BASIC PROGRAM, EMG-U EMG-U, the BASIC program which evaluates the EMG function and obtains the universal data, is listed below. In addition to the documentation supplied within the program itself and the flowcharts given in Fig 2.1, the following should be noted: 1. By letting S = a Q / T and Y = (t-t Q )/a G eq 2.4 can be written as h EMQ (t) = [AS(2tt) 1/2 ] exp(S 2 /2 SY) /exp(-y 2 /2)dy/(2T:) 1/2 ( A .1) J -co where z = Y S. (A ?) 2. To the extent allowed by BASIC, the symbolism used in EMG-U is consistent with that in eqs A.1 and A. 2 and elsewhere in the text. Greek symbols were spelled out partially or entirely. 3. EMG-U was developed on an Apple II Plus computer and optimized for 0.1 < t/o g < 4 using t Q = 100, a Q = 5, 0.001 < dt fflin < 1, and 0.001 < a < 1 Minor modifications may be required for optimum performance if other computers or other values for the parameters are used. 4. EMG-U was designed to minimize execution time; major reductions are not likely to be achieved unless a compiler is used. 5. The EMG evaluation subroutine (lines 2990-3160) may be used independently of the other routines in EMG-U. 84

PAGE 92

85 100 REM EMG-U EVALUATES THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG) FUNCTION 110 REM ALSO DETERMINES TR, HP, TA, TB, B/A, W/SIG, AND (TR-TG)/SIG 120 B$ = • ADD LINE:C$ = 3150 PRINT T,HEMG":D$ = "TO HELP DEBUG." 130 ZERO = 0:PT5 = .5:WUN = 1:TWO = 2:RTTWOPI = SQR (TWO 3. 141592654): TEN = 10: K4 = 10000:K5 = 100000: REM COMMON NUMERICAL CONSTANTS 140 P = ,2316419:B1 = .31938153:B2 = ,356563782:B3 = 1 78 1 477937 : B4 = 1.821 255978 :B5 = 1.330274429: REM CONSTANTS FOR 14 POLYNOMIAL APPROX. 150 A = 1:TG = 100:SIG = 5: REM EMG PRE-EXPONENTIAL CONSTANTS 200 INPUT "ALPHA = (.005 < ALPHA < 1) ? ; ALPHA 220 PRINT "INITIAL, FINAL VALUES OF TAU/SIGMA (T/S): INPUT "(0 1 HLOOK THEN 1220 1260 DT = WUN: GOSUB 3400 1280 IF DT < = TLR THEN 1340 1300 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 1830 1320 GOTO 1280 1340 GOSUB 3500: XTA = T: GOSUB 3000

PAGE 93

86 1400 T = INT (TR + PT5) INT (SIG + PT5) 1420 T = T + INT (SIG + PT5): GOSUB 3000 1440 IF HEMG > HLOOK THEN 1420 1460 TUTINT (SIG + PT5):T2 = T:DT = WUN: GOSUB 2030 1460 IF DT < = TLfi THEN 1540 1500 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 2030 1520 GOTO 1460 1540 GOSUB 3500.-TB = T: GOSUB 3000 1560 RETURN : REM END OF MAIN EMG DATA ROUTINE 1600 REM TR SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 1720 1620 FOR T = T1 TO T2 + DT STEP DT 1640 GOSUB 3000 1660 IF HEMG < HTEMP THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3350: RETURN 1660 HTEMP = HEMG 1700 NEXT T 1720 A$ = "THE TR SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END 1800 REM TA SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 1950 1830 FOR T = T2 TO T1 DT STEP DT 1860 GOSUB 3000 1890 IF HEMG < HLOOK THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3400: RETURN 1920 NEXT T 1950 A$ = "THE TA SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END 2000 REM TB SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 2150 2030 FOR T = T1 TO T2 + DT STEP DT 2060 GOSUB 3000 2090 IF HEMG < HLOOK THEN GOSUB 3300 :T = T DT: GOSUB 3400: RETURN 2120 NEXT T 2150 A$ = "THE TB SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END 2990 REM EMG EVALUATION SUBROUTINE BELOW THRU LINE 31 60 3000 I = (T TG) / SIG:E = S S / TWO S Y:Z = Y SiZTEMP = ZERO 3020 IF Z > = ZERO THEN 3060 3040 ZTEMP = Z:Z = ABS (Z) 3060 NF = EXP ( Z Z / TWO) / RTTWOPI:Q = WUN / (WUN + P Z) 3080 PQ = (B1 + Q (B2 + Q (B3 + Q B4 + B5 Q Q))) 3100 I = NF PQ 3120 IF ZTEMP > = ZERO THEN I = WUN I 3140 HEMG = A S RTTWOPI EXP (E) I 3160 RETURN 3300 T = INT (T K5 + PT5) / INT (K5 + PT5): RETURN 3350 T1 = T TWO DT:T2 = T: HTEMP = ZERO: RETURN 3400 T1 = T:T2 = T + DT: RETURN 3450 DT = DT / TEN: RETURN 3500 T = (T1 + T2) / TWO: GOSUB 3300: RETURN 3550 PRINT CHR$ (7): PRINT A$;B$: PRINT C$: PRINT D$: RETURN

PAGE 94

APPENDIX B— UNIVERSAL EMG DATA AT a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, 0.50 T/a G 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1.0 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2.0 0.05 (B/A >0.05 W 0.05 /CT G (t R -t Q )/a G 1.0331 5.1088 0.2792 1.0490 5.1812 0.3194 1.0679 5.2620 0.3576 1.0898 5.3506 0.3938 1.1141 5.4468 0.4280 1.1411 5.5494 0.4608 1.1701 5.6582 0.4920 1.2009 5.7722 0.5218 1.2337 5.8912 0.5502 1.2679 6.0146 0.5774 1.3037 6.1416 0.6034 1.3404 6.2722 0.6284 1.3783 6.4056 0.6522 1.4170 6.5414 0.6752 1.4563 6.6796 0.6974 1.4964 6.8196 0.7186 1.5368 6.9610 0.7392 1.5776 7.1040 0.7590 1.6189 7.2482 0.7782 1.6605 7.3934 0.7966 1.7022 7.5392 0.8146 1.7441 7.6862 0.8320 1.7862 7.8336 0.8488 1.8285 7.9816 0.8650 1.8706 8.1302 0.8610 1.9132 8.2792 0.8964 1.9555 8.4286 0.9114 1.9982 8.5784 0.9258 2.0407 6.7286 0.9400 2.0833 8.8788 0.9538 2.1259 9.0296 0.9672 2.1685 9.1804 0.9604 2.2111 9.3314 0.9932 2.2535 9.4826 1.0058 2.2961 9.6338 1.0180 87

PAGE 95

T/a G ""^0.05 W 0.05 /a G (t R -t )/a G 2 05 2.3367 9.7856 1.0298 2-1 2.3813 9.9370 1.0414 2 1 5 2.4237 10.0890 1.0528 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.65 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.95 (B/A) 0>05 W 0.05 /a G 2.3387 9.7856 2.3813 9.9370 2.4237 10.0890 2.4662 10.2406 2.5084 10.3926 2.5509 10.5448 2.5934 10.6968 2.6355 10.8490 2.6778 11.0010 2.7200 11.1534 2.7620 11.3056 2.8044 11.4580 2.8465 11.6104 2.8885 11.7628 2.9303 11.9152 2.9723 12.0678 3.0143 12.2202 3.0561 12.3726 3.0978 12.5252 3.1395 12.6776 1.0640 1.0750 1.0856 1.0960 1.1064 1.1164 1.1262 2 55 2.7620 11.3056 1.1360 2.6 1.1454 1.1546 2-7 2.8885 11.7628 1.1638 1.1728 1.1816 1.1902 2 -9 3.0561 12.3726 1.1988 1.2072 3-0 3.1395 12.6776 1.2154

PAGE 96

89 Va Q ( B /A) 0<1 0.1 1.0013 0.15 1.0043 0.2 1.0096 0.25 1.0174 0.3 1.0278 0.35 1.0406 0.4 1.05&0 0.45 1.0734 0.5 1.0927 0.55 1.1140 0.6 1.1367 0.65 1.1608 0.7 1.1864 0.75 1.2133 0.8 1.2412 0.85 1.2700 0.9 1.3001 0.95 1.3309 1.0 1.3621 1.05 1.3942 1.1 1.4269 1.15 1.4599 1.2 1.4935 1.25 1.5274 1.3 1.5615 1.35 1.5960 1.4 1.6307 1.45 1.6658 1.5 1.7006 1.55 1.7358 1.6 1.7712 1.65 1.8066 1.7 1.8419 1.75 1.8775 1.8 1.9128 1.85 1.9466 1.9 1.9843 1.95 2.0198 2.0 2.0555 = 0.10 W 0.1 /G G (t R -t G )/a Q 4.3142 0.0940 4.3412 0.1440 4.3764 0.1916 4.4200 0.2366 4.4710 0.2792 4.5292 0.3194 4.5932 0.3576 4.6628 0.3938 4.7372 0.4282 4.8158 0.4608 4.8984 0.4920 4.9844 0.5218 5.0736 0.5502 5.1660 0.5774 5.2608 0.6034 5.3584 0.6284 5.4580 0.6522 5.5598 0.6752 5.6632 0.6974 5.7684 0.7186 5.8748 0.7392 5.9S28 0.7590 6.0918 0.7782 6.2016 0.7966 6.3124 0.8146 6.4242 0.8320 6.5364 0.8486 6.6492 0.8659 6.7626 0.8810 6.8764 0.8964 6.9908 0.9112 7.1054 0.9258 7.2204 0.9400 7.3356 0.9538 7.4512 0.9672 7.5670 0.9804 7.6830 0.9932 7.7992 1.0058 7.9154 1.0180

PAGE 97

90 Va G 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.6 2.85 2.9 2.95 3.0 ;b/aj 0#1 W 0.1 /a G (t fi -t G )/a G 2.0913 8.0320 1.0298 2.1270 8.1486 1.0414 2.1627 8.2652 1.0528 2.1985 8.3822 1.0640 2.2340 8.4992 1.0750 2.2697 8.6160 1.0856 2.3054 8.7332 1.0960 2.3409 8.8504 1.1064 2.3765 8.9676 1.1160 2.4122 9.0850 1.1262 2.4475 9.2024 1.1360 2.4831 9.3198 1.1454 2.5184 9.4374 1.1548 2.5541 9.5546 1.1638 2.5893 9.6722 1.1728 2.6249 9.7898 1.1816 2.6603 9.9074 1.1902 2.6955 10.0248 1.1988 2.7307 10.1426 1.2072 2.7659 10.2602 1.2154

PAGE 98

91 0.30 x/a G 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1.0 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2.0 (B/A) 0.3 1.0185 1.026b 1.0366 1.0474 1.0592 1.0722 1.0857 1.0998 ,1149 ,1303 ,1463 1627 1800 1973 1.2151 1.2334 1.2520 1.2709 1.2900 1.3095 1.3293 1.3493 1.3696 1.3902 1.4108 1.4317 1.4527 1.4742 1.4955 1.5170 1.5387 1.5606 1.5825 1.6043 1.6263 W 0.3 /a G (t R -t G )/a G 3.2248 0.2792 3.2616 0.3194 3.3014 0.3576 3.3434 0.3938 3.3878 0.4282 3.4336 0.4608 3.4806 0.4920 3.5290 0.5218 3.5784 0.5502 3.6288 0.5774 3.6800 0.6034 3.7316 0.6284 3.7844 0.6522 3.8374 0.6752 3.8914 0.6974 3.9456 0.7186 4.0004 0.7392 4.0558 0.7590 4.1114 0.7782 4.1678 0.7966 4.2244 0.8146 4.2814 0.8320 4.3388 0.8488 4.3966 0.8650 4.4546 0.8810 4.5132 0.8964 4.5718 0.9114 4.6308 0.9258 4.6900 0.9400 4.7496 0.9538 4.8094 0.9672 4.8692 0.9804 4.9294 0.9932 4.9898 1.0058 5.0504 1.0180

PAGE 99

92 T/a Q 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 2.95 3.0 (B/A) 0-3 W 0.3 /a G (t fi -t G )/a G 1.6486 5.1108 1.0298 1.6710 5.1716 1.0414 1.6933 5.2326 1.0528 1.7155 5.2936 1.0640 1.7379 5.3548 1.0750 1.7604 5.4160 1.0850 1.7829 5.4774 1.0960 1.8053 5.5388 1.1064 1.8279 5.6004 1.1164 1.8507 5.6620 1.1262 1.8730 5.7236 1.1360 1.8959 5.7854 1.1454 1.9186 5.8472 1.1548 1.9413 5.9090 1.1638 1.9639 5.9710 1.1728 1.9865 6.0328 1.1816 2.0092 6.0948 1.1902 2.0317 6.1568 1.1988 2.0544 6.2188 1.2072 2.0771 6.2810 1.2154

PAGE 100

93 t/c g (B/A) 0
PAGE 101

94 Va G 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 2.95 3.0 (B/A) 0.5 1.4222 1.4364 1.4505 1.4646 1.4789 1.4933 1.5078 1.5220 1.5366 1.5511 1.5656 1.5804 1.5953 1.6098 1.6245 1.6393 1.6543 1.6690 1.6837 1.6986 W 0.5 /CT G (t R -t Q )/a G 3.6216 1.0298 3.6570 1.0414 3.6924 1.0528 3.7280 1.0640 3.7634 1.0750 3.7988 1.0856 3.8344 1.0960 3.8702 1.1064 3.9056 1.1164 3.9414 1.1262 3.9772 1.1360 4.0130 1.1454 4.0486 1.1546 4.0844 1.1638 4.1204 1.1728 4.1564 1.1816 4.1922 1.1902 4.2282 1.1988 4.2644 1.2072 4.3002 1.2154

PAGE 102

APPENDIX C-DERIVATION OF V. in j ,max We begin with a previously derived expression (5, p. 289) which relates the peak volume observed for a finite size sample, V to the volume of injected sample, V" in and to the peak volume observed for a very small sample, V V = V p 2 +^3 (V inj ) 2 (A.1) Let V w = (y + 1)V p (A. 2) where y = loss in resolution due to a finite injection volume. Substituting eq A. 2 into eq A.1 and solving for V. yields v inj = C3/My 2 + 2y)] 1/2 v p (a. 3) We now express V p in terms of N, k, and V M using eqs A.4-A.6, assuming V p = V b' the volurae corresponding to the base width of the peak. N = ( V fi/ a V ) 2 (A. 4) V b = ^ a y (A-5) V R = V M (1 + k) (A. 6) The result is V p = 4V M (1 + k)/N 1/2 (A. 7) Substitution of eq A. 7 into eq A. 3 yields the desired expression V inj = C3/4(y 2 + 2y] 1/2 4V M (1 + k)/N 1/2 (A. 8) If y is re-designated to be the maximum tolerable loss in resolution, then eq A. 8 becomes, upon rearrangement, V inj,max = 2 ^) 1/2 (y 2 + 2y) 1/2 v M (1 + k)/N 1 / 2 ( A 9 ) which is the desired expression. 95

PAGE 103

REFERENCES 1. L.S. Ettre. "Evolution of Liquid Chromatography: A Historical Overview" in High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Advances and Perspectives, Vol. 1. C. Horvath, Ed. Academic Press, New York, 1960, pp. 2-74. 2. H.A. Laitinen and G.W. Ewing. A History of Analytical Chemistry, The Maple Press Company, York, Pa., 1977, pp. 296-321. 3. J. A. Perry. Introduction to Analytical Gas Chromatography: History, Principles, and Practice, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1981. **• L.S. Ettre. Basic Relationships of Gas Chromatography, PerkinElmer, Norwalk, Conn., 1979. 5. L.R. Snyder and J.J. Kirkland. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York, 1979. 6. E. Grushka, N.M. Myers, P.D. Schetler, and J.C. Giddings. Computer Characterization of Chromatographic Peaks by Plate Height and Higher Central Moments. Anal. Chem., 41: 889-892 (1969). 7. 0. Grubner. Interpretation of Asymmetric Curves in Linear Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 43: 1934-1937 (1971). 8. L.A. Currie. Limits for Qualitative Detection and Quantitative Determination: Application to Radiochemistry. Anal. Chem., 40: 586-593 (1966). 9. H. Kaiser. Guiding Concepts in Trace Analysis. Pure Appl. Chem., 34: 35-61 (1973). 10. G.L. Long and J.D. Winefordner. Limit of Detection: A Closer Look at the TUPAC Definition. Anal. Chem. 55: 712A-724A (1983). 11. J.C. Sternberg. "Extracolumn Contributions to Chromatographic Band Broadening" in Advances in Chromatography, Vol. 2. J.C. Giddings and R.A. Keller, Eds. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1966, pp. 205-270. 96

PAGE 104

97 12. P.T. Kissinger, L.J. Felice, D.J. Miner, C.R. Reddy, and R.E. Shoup. "Detectors for Trace Organic Analysis by Liquid Chromatography: Principles and Applications" in Contemporary Topics in Analytical and Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 2. D.M. Hercules, G.M. Hieftje, L.R. Snyder, and M.A. Evenson, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, 1978, pp. 67-74, 159-175. 13. B.L. Karger, J.N. LePage, and N. Tanaka. "Secondary Chemical Equilibria" in High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Advances and Perspectives, Vol. 1. C. Horvath, Ed. Academic Press, New York, 1960, pp. 119-121. 14. L.J. Schmauch. Response Time and Flow Sensitivity for Gas Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 31: 225-230 (1959). 15. H.W. Johnson, Jr. and F.H. Stross. Gas Liquid Chromatography: Determination of Column Efficiency. Anal. Chem., 31: 357-364 (1959). 16. J.C. Giddings. Kinetic Origin of Tailing In Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 35: 1999-2002 (1963). 17. R.J.E. Esser. Effect of Detector Volume on Recorded Shape of Chromatographic Peaks Obtained by Spectrophotometry Detection. Z. Anal. Chem., 236: 59-64 (1966). 18. H.M. Gladney, B.F. Dowden, and J.D. Swalen. Computer-Assisted Gas-Liquid Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 41: 883-888 (1969). 19. I.G. McWilliam and H.C. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion: I. Relaxation Time Effects. Anal. Chem., 41: 1755-1762 (1969). 20. I.G. McWilliam and H.G. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion: II. Effect of Recorder Response Time. Anal. Chem., 41: 1762-1770 (1969). 21. V. Maynard and E. Grushka. Effect of Dead Volume on Efficiency of a Gas Chromatographic System. Anal. Chem., 44: 1427-1434 (1972). 22. R.E. Pauls and L.B. Rogers. Band Broadening Studies Using Parameters for an Exponentially Modified Gaussian. Anal. Chem., 49: 625-626 (1977). 23. J.J. Kirkland, W.W. Yau, H.J. Stoklosa, and C.H. Dilks, Jr. Sampling and Extracolumn Effects in High Performance Liquid Chromatography; Influence of Peak Skew on Plate Count Calculations. J. Chromatogr. Sci., 15: 303-316 (1977). 24. S.N. Chesler and S.P. Cram. Effect of Peak Sensing and Random Noise on the Precision and Accuracy of Statistical Moment Analyses from Digital Chromatographic Data. Anal. Chem., 43: 1922-1933 (1971).

PAGE 105

98 25. W.W. Yau. Characterizing Skewed Chromatographic Band Broadening. Anal. Chem., 49: 395-398 (1977). 26. R.E. Pauls and L.B. Rogers. Comparison of Methods for Calculating Retention and Separation of Chromatographic Peaks. Sep. Sci. and Tech., 12: 395-413 (1977). 27. E. Grushka. Characterization of Exponentially Modified Peaks in Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 44: 1733-1738 (1972). 2a. S.M. Roberts, D.H. Wilkinson, and L.R. Walker. Practical Least Squares Approximation of Chromatograms. Anal. Chem., 42: 886-893 (1970). 29. A.H. Anderson, T.C. Gibb, and A.B. Littlewood. Computer Resolution of Unresolved Convolved Gas-Chromatographic Peaks. J. Chromatogr. Sci., 8: 640-646 (1970). 30. I.G. McWilliam and H.C. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion III. Analysis of Overlapping Curves. Anal. Chem., 43: 883-669 (1971). 31. W.E. Barber and P.W. Carr. Graphical Method for Obtaining Retention Time and Number of Theoretical Plates from Tailed Chromatographic Peaks. Anal. Chem., 53: 1939-1942 (1981). 32. P.W. Carr, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, personal communication, supplementary material from reference 31. 33. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Eds. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Applied Mathematics Series No. 55. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 1964, p. 932. 34. D.G. Peters, J.M. Hayes, and G.M. Hieftje. Chemical Separations and Measurements, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1974, p. 18. 35. R.S. Burington. Handbook of Mathematical Tables and Formulas, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973, pp. 424-427. 36. B.L. Karger, M. Martin, and G. Guichon. Role of Column Parameters and Injection Volume on Detection Limits In Liquid Chromatograohy. Anal. Chem., 46: 1640-1647 (1974). 37. N.H.C. Cooke, B.G. Archer, K. Olsen, and A. Berick. Comparison of Threeand Five-Micrometer Columns Packings for Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 52: 2277-2283 (1982). 38. General Gas Chromatography Procedures. ASTM E 260-73, American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.; originally published 1965; latest revision 1973. 39. Gas Chromatography Terms and Relationships. ASTM E 355-77, American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.; originally published 1968; latest revision 1977.

PAGE 106

99 40. Liquid Chromatography Terms and Relationships. ASTM E 682-79, American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 1979 Recommendations on Nomenclature for Chromatography. International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Pure Appl. Chem., 37: 445-462 41 ** 2 L s Ettre. The Nomenclature of Chromatography: I. Gas Chromatography. J. Chromatogr., 165: 235-256 (1979). 43. L.S. Ettre. The Nomenclature of Chromatography: II. Liquid Chromatography. J. Chromatogr., 220: 29-63 (1981). 44. Nomenclature, Symbols, Units and Their Usage in Spectrocheraical Analysis— II. Data Interpretation, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Spectrochimica Acta, 33B: 241-245 ( 1978) rules approved 1975. 45. Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in Environmental Chemistry. Anal. Chem., 52: 2241-2249 (1978). 46. K. Kaiser. Quantitation In Elemental Analysis, Part II. Anal Chem., 42: 26A-59A (1979).

PAGE 107

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Joe Preston Foley was born in Lexington, Kentucky on October 23, 1956. He grew up on a livestock and tobacco farm outside Versailles, Kentucky, and attended the Woodford County public schools. His early adolescent interests included camping, sandlot football and basketball, comic books, fireworks, model rockets, and space exploration. He added running to his list of hobbies one day after he woke his sister (who had fallen asleep while sunbathing) with a firecracker. While attending junior high school, Joe was elected President of the student council and Governor of the statewide Junior Kentucky Youth Assembly. As he entered Woodford County High School, his extracurricular interests shifted to chess and varsity tennis. In June of 1974, he graduated with highest distinction (co-Valedictorian). During the next four years Joe attended Centre College of Kentucky, where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He received chemistry awards sponsored by Centre as a freshman, sophoaore, and senior. During the summer of 1977 he worked as a student intern for the Center for Technology Assessment and Policy Studies (CTAPS) at Rose-Hulraan Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Indiana. In June of 1978, he graduated with highest distinction (co-Valedictorian) and received a Bachelor of Science in chemistry and chemical physics. In the summer of 1978 Joe again worked for the Center for Technology Assessment and Policy Studies. In the fall he returned to Centre 100

PAGE 108

101 College, his alma mater, for a nine-month appointment as a physical science laboratory instructor. Joe began his graduate study in chemistry at the University of Florida in June of 1979. In May of 1963 he was one of eleven graduate students selected nationally for an American Chemical Society Division of Analytical Chemistry Fellowship. Later in 1983 he completed the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in analytical chemistry and accepted a National Research Council Postdoctoral Research Associateship at the National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg, Maryland


11
integral equals the constant (tr)^2 to within 0.01$ and is thus
virtually independent of z. In regions a and b, however, the relative
value of the definite integral is highly dependent on z. Numerous
techniques permit the accurate evaluation of 1^ in region b. In region
a, however, as z becomes more negative, it becomes more difficult to
approximate the integral to the same (high) relative accuracy. Thus it
is pertinent to examine the practical minimum values of z for EMG peaks.
As seen from eq 2.2, z depends on a) the normalized difference
between the time of interest, t, and t^; and b) the reciprocal of the
peak asymmetry, (r/aG) For a given peak shape (constant t/q), z
will therefore be smallest (most negative) at the starting threshold of
the peak, which may be conveniently defined as that time (t) on the
leading edge of the EMG peak where the value of the function £hEMG^^
is a specified fraction, B, of its maximum value, i.e., hg^G(t)/hp = B.
Moreover, the minimum z value will decrease as the starting threshold is
decreased. This is shown in Table 2.1 where minimum z values are
tabulated for EMG peaks with asymmetries ranging from 0.1 to 3. Another
trend illustrated is that for a given starting threshold, zmpn increases
with increasing asymmetry (t/Cq).
Previous methods. Given this wide range of z values, how is 1^
(in eq 2.1) evaluated? Except for a vague reference to an unspecified
polynomial approximation (30), all previous methods for calculating I-|
employ different techniques for different values of z. For moderate z
values (e.g., regions b and c, above), some methods utilized the well-
known identity
x
exp(-y2)dy = 0.5 (tt ) 1/2[ 1 + erf(x)]
co
(2.3)


58
remaining four problems (3-6 in Table 4.1) comprise the major sources of
discrepancy in chromatographic detection limits, and are the topics to
be addressed in this report.
Numerical Example
Before proceeding, however, a numerical example which incorporates
problems 4-6 (see Table 4.1) will be given. This example will
demonstrate to the reader the magnitude of these problems and will
facilitate later discussion. Though designed with liquid chromatography
in mind, the points made by this example apply equally well to gas
chromatography.
The initial assumptions, experimental conditions, and results of
this example are shown in Table 4.2. To avoid the confusion which it
would certainly have caused, problem #3 of Table 4.1 was not
incorporated into this example. If it had been, the results might have
been even more shocking. Nevertheless, as seen in the bottom row of
Table 4.2, the LODs for the two systems employing identical detectors
differ by three and one-half orders of magnitude!
Though a detailed explanation of this example is beyond the scope
of the present discussion, the huge discrepancy in the two LODs will be
reconciled after the last three problems in Table 4.2 are solved. This
example should awaken the reader to the seriousness of these problems
and demonstrate why they must be eliminated if the chromatographic LOD
is to be a meaningful figure of merit.


Table
: 2.3. Accuracy of
the Polynomial Approximation for 1^ in
Equation 2.4'
z
lip true (34)
1^, this work
I|, previous workb
% REC
-12
d
1.83 x 10-33
1 .78 x 10"33
+ 3.1
-10
7.6 x 1024
7.77 x 10"24
7.62 x 10~24
+ 2.0
- 8
6.2 x 10'16
6.28 x 10"16
6.22 x 10"16
+ 1.0
- 6
9.9 x 10"10
9.90 x 10"10
9.87 x 10"10
+ 0.4
- 4
3.2 x 10-5
3.169 x 10"5
3.166 x 105
+ 0.09
- 2
0.0227
0.0227

< +0.01
0
0.5000
0.5000

< +0.01
2
0.9772 (35)
0.9772

< +0.01
>3.9
1.0000 (35)
1.0000

< +0.01
aSee
eqs 2.2, 2.4, and
2.1 for expressions
for z, and 1^,
respectively
bSee
reference 27 and i
note that 1^ = I^/(tt)
1/2
Percentage error in 1^, this work compared to 1^, true for z >. -2, and
compared to I-j /(tt ) ^2, previous work for z <_ -4.
Pot reported for z < -10.


CHAPTER 3
EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC
FIGURES OF MERIT FOR IDEAL AND SKEWED PEAKS
Introduction
Adoption of the EMG model for chromatographic peak characterization
results in a new set of chromatographic figures of merit (CFOMs) which
are listed in Table 3.1. These CFOMs consist of fundamental and
derived EMG parameters, the latter containing explicit expressions for
the first through fourth statistical moments defined previously in
Table 1.1. Included among these new CFOMs are the following: the
retention time, tg, and standard deviation, o^, of the associated parent
Gaussian peak from which the skewed peak is derived; the exponential
modifier, t; the fundamental ratio, t/qi which characterizes peak
asymmetry; the observed efficiency (number of theoretical plates) of a
given (asymmetric) chromatographic system, N0,rc,; the maximum efficiency
by b
a given system could achieve, N_, if all sources of asymmetry were
lUd-X.
eliminated; and finally, two CFOMs proposed originally in this work
which demonstrate how peak asymmetry drastically reduces chromatographic
efficiencythe relative system efficiency, RSE, and the relative plate
loss, RPL.
Derivations
If the estimate G obtained from using a Gaussian peak shape
equation is used to approximate the true value T of a CFOM for an
asymmetric peak, the relative error RE which results is defined as
25


63
Choosing a Model
As discussed earlier, the LOD may be defined in terms of an
arbitrary signal-to-noise (S/1M) level. In our survey of the
chromatographic trace analysis literature, we found a multitude of
arbitrary S/N levels used, ranging from 2 to 10. To further complicate
matters, neither the measures of the signal (peak height, peak area,
etc.) nor the noise (peak-to-peak, root mean square, etc.) were
specified in many instances.
These inconsistencies and ambiguities are not surprising since (to
our knowledge) no standard model for the LOD has ever been proposed,
much less adopted, by any recognized organization for the field of
*
chromatography! We note specifically the omission of an LOD definition
in chromatography by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and by IUPAC in their respective publications on gas and/or
liquid chromatography nomenclature (36-41). The omission by these and
other organizations is also substantiated in two reviews (42,43).
More importantly, however, the above inconsistencies and
ambiguities can be eliminated completely if a clearly stated LOD model
is adopted. Therefore the adoption of, with minor reinterpretation, the
IUPAC model for spectrochemical analysis (44) or a model based on first
order error propagation (10) is proposed. These models are given in
eqs 4.5a and 4.5b, respectively,
LOD = 3sb/S (4.5a)
*,
(The model which the International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted in 1975 (44) was chosen specifically
for spectrochemical analysis. Though the ACS Subcommittee on
Environmental Chemistry reaffirmed this model in 1980 (45),
it did so for the area of environmental chemistry and not
specifically for the field of chromatography.)


67
eq 4.1) should be the quotient of the units of the measured signal and
the units of the independent variable. Therefore, since the units for
the noise expression (numerator of eq 4.1) are the same as those for the
measured signal, the units for the detection limit should be the same as
the units of the independent variable of the calibration curve. Thus,
to decide which units are correct for the LOD, we need only to identify
the units of the independent variable of the calibration curve, i.e., to
determine whether the chromatographic signal depends on the
concentration or amount of analyte injected.
Equations 4.7 and 4.8 (36,37) below show that the signal (peak
height, hp) is directly proportional to the maximum concentration,
Cmax det or maxi-mum flux, Fmax et f ^he chromatographic peak
flowing through the detector, which in turn are directly proportional to
the amount of analyte injected.
(4.7)
(4.8)
Thus the same conclusion is reached once again: The chromatographic LOD
must be given in units of amount, i.e., in moles, grams, or some
fraction thereof.
Identifying faulty logic. Despite these convincing arguments, some
researchers insist on reporting their chromatographic LODs in
concentration units. Their rationale might be as follows:
1. The amount of analyte injected, Qinj> is the product of the
concentration of analyte in the sample, Cpnj, and the volume of sample
injected, Vinj.
qinj Cinj Vinj
hP a Cmax,det = qinj 1,1/2 (l7r)1/2/VR
hP Fmax,det = qinj 1,1/2 (^)1/2/tR
(4.9)


42
1. Examination of Tables 3.2, 3-3, and 3.4 shows that many CFOM
equations at 10% are clearly superior to the corresponding ones at 30%
and 50% in terms of
a) precision (lowest RSD limits)
b) widest working range for equivalent accuracy (e.g., N )
c) simplicity for M~ (path a)
2. The N equation at 10% peak height is more accurate for Gaussian
O j b
and near-Gaussian peaks than other N g equations developed at 50%, 30%,
or 5%. For example, at B/A = 1 the relative error was +0.6%, +10.0%,
+2.0%, and +2.5%, respectively.
3. In a previously reported graphical measurement study (31,32),
statistically significant positive and negative biases were detected in
the measurement of Aq ^ and Bq respectively, resulting in a
consistent underestimation of (B/a)q ^. No such biases were detected
for Aq,i and Bq -j, and only a slight underestimation was observed for
(B/A )q. 1.
4. It is likely that RSD(Wq q^) > RSD(Wq ^), since in going from Wq -¡ to
Wq 05 the magnitude of the slope of the peak (on either side) decreases
much more rapidly than the peak width increases. Thus the precision for
the 5% CFOM equations would be poorer [assuming RSD(Wq q^) contributes
substantially to the total uncertainty].
5. Superior resolution between overlapping peaks is required for
measurements at 5% peak height than at 10%.
6. As exemplified in Figure 3.2 for N Gaussian CFOM equations based
on width measurements at 10% are mucn less inaccurate (though still
exceedingly in error) for asymmetric peaks than the corresponding
Gaussian equations at 50% (shown) and 30% (not shown). That is, the
slope of the RE vs. (B/A)a (shown for a = 0.1) plots is smaller; thus
the approximate RE correction function in the denominator of eqs 3.2 and
3.5 (text) will be less sensitive to the measurement imprecision of
(B/A)a).
7. The sensitivity of the relative error (RE) correction functions to
the (B/A)a measurement imprecision is only slightly lower at 5% than at
10% peak height (see Figure 3.2) and is insufficient to warrant CFOM
estimation at 5%.
6. As seen in Table 3.7, the RSE can be calculated much more accurately
using width measurements at 10% than at 50%, 30%, or 5%. In addition,
the precision is much better (lower RSD limits) at 10% than at 50% or
30%, and is comparable to that at 5%.
9. The empirical asymmetry factor measurement, B/A, was introduced at
10% peak height rather than at 50% or 30% because peak tailing is much
more apparent at 10%. Since then almost all empirical measurements of
asymmetry have been reported at this peak height fraction; these data
will be of little value in later years if the B/A peak height fraction
is redefined.


Table 2.5. Comparison of Universal Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Data
Obtained from this Study and a Previous Study (32) at a = 0.10
x/crG
B/A
W/aQ
(tR-tG)/aG
This
Studya
Previous
Work Difference
This
Study5
Previous
Work Difference
This
Study5
Previous
Work
Difference
0. 1
1.0013 + 0.0003
1.00147198
+0.0002
4.3142
4.31419
none
0.0940
0.0939102
-0.0001
0.5
1.0927 + 0.0003
1.0926010
-0.0001
4.7372
4.73722
none
0.4282
0.428337
+0.0001
1.0
1.3621 + 0.0003
1.361596
-0.0005
5.6632
5.66330
+0.0001
0.6974
0.697960
+0.0006
2.0
2.0555 + 0.0004
2.05414
-0.0014
7.9154
7.91554
+0.0001
1.0180
1.01911
+0.0011
3.0
2.7659 0.0004
2.76371
-0.0022
10.2602
10.2602
none
1.2154
1.21700
+0.0016
aMaximum error reported for each B/A datum of this study.
^Maximum errors are 0.0002 for all W/c^, ^R^G^aG data this study.


52
O
asymmetrical (t ) band-broadening processes to the total system band-
p
broadening (Mg, the total variance). If can be neglected
because of its nearness to unity, the former intuitive expressions for
RSE and RPL become particularly useful. For example, the best possible
efficiency, Nmax, can be related very simply to the true chromatographic
efficiency, Nsyg, by
max = Ssys/HSE <3->3)
In fact, this approximation is good to within + 2% with an RSD limit of
5% (for 1.00 < B/A < 2.75) whenever N__ (calculated via eq 3.13) >
HI 3.X
4000. Thus, eq 3.13 can serve as a useful estimation of N for
moderate to high efficiency chromatographic systems.
Although B/A, RSE, and RPL are mutually interdependent (i.e., once
B/A has been measured RSE and RPL may be calculated) the specification
of RSE, RPL, or both in addition to the reporting of B/A greatly
enhances the qualitative description of a chromatographic system. Thus,
while B/A = 1.30 indicates that a given peak is asymmetric, the
corresponding RSE = 55% or RPL = 45£ provides a clearer indication of
the actual efficiency and how much room for improvement exists.
Figure 3-4 shows the exponential-like relationship of RSE and RPL
with B/A. Chromatographic systems with asymmetries of 1.00 and 1.10 are
operating at much different relative efficiencies, while two systems
operating at B/A = 2.00 and 2.10 are realizing nearly the same relative
efficiencies.
Alternative derivations. Two other approaches for deriving CFOM
equations were not as successful as that already described. In the
first attempt, a modification of the Carr graphical method, three
universal calibration curves were approximated by linear or quadratic


77
Table 4.4. Proposed values for the component parameters
of the chromatographic reference states
parameter
LC
PGC
0TGC
kref
4
4
4
kref
10,000
10,000
62,50(
VM,ref(raL)
1
3
2
ppfimin.)
1
0.3
1.3


Table 1.2extended.
1978 instrumental peak distortion (review) 12
1981 graphical deconvolution of EMG chromatographic' peaks 31
1983 equations for chromatographic figures of merit Chapter 3> this work


24
Conclusion
Though the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) model has already
been employed in numerous studies in chromatography as Table 1.2 shows,
its usage might have been still more extensive had it not been for some
confusing discrepancies and for the overly complex methods used for its
evaluation reported previously. Hopefully the clarification of these
discrepancies and presentation of a simple method for evaluating the EMG
function and obtaining universal data will encourage more scientists in
all fields to use the EMG model, when appropriate.


90
VaG
(B/A) o.1
W0.1/aG
(tfi-tG)/0G
2.05
2.0913
8.0320
1.0298
2.1
2.1270
8.1486
1.0414
2.15
2.1627
8.2652
1.0528
2.2
2.1985
8.3822
1.0640
2.25
2.2340
8.4992
1.0750
2.3
2.2697
8.6160
1.0856
2.35
2.3054
8.7332
1.0960
2.4
2.3^09
8.8504
1.1064
2.45
2.3765
8.9676
1.1160
2.5
2.4122
9.0850
1.1262
2.55
2.4475
9.2024
1.1360
2.6
2.4831
9.3198
1.1454
2.65
2.5184
9.4374
1.1548
2.7
2.5541
9.5546
1.1638
2.75
2.5893
9.6722
1.1728
2.6
2.6249
9.7898
1.1816
2.85
2.6603
9.9074
1.1902
2.9
2.6955
10.0248
1.1988
2.95
2.7307
10.1426
1.2072
3.0
2.7659
10.2602
1.2154


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Joe Preston Foley was born in Lexington, Kentucky on October 23,
195b. He grew up on a livestock and tobacco farm outside Versailles,
Kentucky, and attended the Woodford County public schools. His early
adolescent interests included camping, sandlot football and basketball,
comic books, fireworks, model rockets, and space exploration. He added
running to his list of hoboies one day after he woke his sister (who had
fallen asleep while sunbathing) with a firecracker.
While attending junior high school, Joe was elected President of
the student council and Governor of the statewide Junior Kentucky Youth
Assembly. As he entered Woodford County High School, his extra
curricular interests shifted to chess and varsity tennis. In June of
1974, he graduated with highest distinction (co-Valedictorian).
During the next four years Joe attended Centre College of Kentucky,
where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He received chemistry awards
sponsored by Centre as a freshman, sophomore, and senior. During the
summer of 1977 he worked as a student intern for the Center for
Technology Assessment and Policy Studies (CTAPS) at Rose-Hulman
Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Indiana. In June of 1978, he
graduated with highest distinction (co-Valedictorian) and received a
Bachelor of Science in chemistry and chemical physics.
In the summer of 1978 Joe again worked for the Center for Technology
Assessment and. Policy Studies. In the fall he returned to Centre
100


54
polynomials. This approach yielded equations for cr^, t t^, and the
remaining CFOMs in terms of Wq -¡ B/A, and tR, but was unsatisfactory
for three reasons: a) an accurate but simple approximation of x/a^ in
terms of B/A cannot be obtained for the range 1.00 < B/A < 2.76 because
the relationship between them changes at B/A = 1.36 from a decidedly
nonlinear one to an almost perfectly linear one; b) the errors
introduced by the polynomial approximations tend to accumulate slightly
rather than cancel; and c) the equations derived for all the CFOMs
except x, Oq, and t^ are extremely unwieldly, e.g., eq 3.14 below,
Ngys = (tfiAw0>1)2[g(B/A)/h(B/A)] (3.14)
where g and h are second degree polynomials of B/A. A variation of this
same approach in which B/A was substituted for the original abscissa
x/aQ in the latter two calibration curves made little difference.
A second attempt, a variation of the relative error (RE) approach
utilizing (B A) as the approximation G in eq 3*5 for x, failed
because the simplest f(B/A) approximation required for sufficient
accuracy was too complex.
CFQM units. For ease of interlaboratory comparison, all non
unitless CFOMs should be reported in time units; if units of length are
chosen instead, the recorder chart speed should be specified to permit
conversion to time units.


46
10. It is easier to mentally compute 10% of an arbitrary peak height
than 50%, 30%, or 5%.
Taken collectively, the above arguments indicate that the best CFOM
estimation is obtained from graphical chromatographic measurements at
10% peak height.
General Aspects
Preliminary modeling of experimental peaks. Chromatographic peaks
should be examined for their resemblance to Gaussian, EMG, or other peak
shapes, first by visual inspection and then from the asymmetry factor
measurement. In the unlikely event that B/A = 1, the validity of the
Gaussian model can be checked by comparing the measured peak width
ratios Wq ^ :Wq ^ :Wq ^ to the theoretically predicted ratios 0.5487 :
0.7231 : 1. For B/A >. 1.09, the validity of the EMG model can be judged
by the agreement of values of M2 and/or t, and tg determined from
both B/A and Wa measurements at a = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 (see Tables 3*2,
3.3, and 3.4).
For slightly asymmetric chromatographic peaks, the assignment of
peak shape models may be ambiguous due to the imprecise measurement of
B/A (e.g., Is a peak with B/A = 1.03 0.02 Gaussian?). Insofar as
accuracy and precision are concerned, does it matter if EMG-based
equations are used with Gaussian peaks or vice-versa? As seen from
Table 3-2, the EMG based equations for Ng M2, and Oq are accurate to
within 1.5%, +.1.5%, and + 4%, respectively, over the asymmetry range
1.00 < B/A < 1.09. Figure 3-3 shows the accuracy of the Gaussian based
equations (a = 0.1) over this same range. Clearly, little error in the
estimation of M2, ^sys and aG result from peak model
misassignments at low asymmetries (1.00 < B/A < 1.09) due to B/A


45
Table 3-7. Comparison of the Accuracy and Precision of the
RSE Equations at a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50
equation
$RE limits
% RSD
RSE
= 1.04 L(B/A)0<05]
-2.00
-5.0, +4.5
+ 4.0
RSE
= 0.99 [(B/A)0_10J
-2.24
2. 1
+ 4.5
RSE
= 0.926[(B/A)0>30]
-3.11
-7.5, +2.3
+ 8.0
RSE
= o.913C(b/a)0<50]
-4.33
-9.0, +4.5
13.0


76
t ref
^ref^ + kref)/(Nref)1/2
(4.28)
The reference values for the individual parameters were selected in
accordance with one or more of the following criteria:
1. The value represents an intermediate chromatographic performance
which is easily achieved except under unusual circumstances.
2. The value falls within a range of values reported directly in the
scientific and trade literature.
3. The value falls within a range of values calculated from column
manufacturer specifications.
4. The value falls within a previously recommended range [k onlysee
ref 12, p. 67].
The values selected for the chromatographic bandwidth component
parameters are given in Table 4.4. The resulting reference states and
corresponding standardized LOD equations are shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 and the advantages enumerated earlier conveniently
summarize the bulk of the material presented in this section. Only one
additional point needs to be made: non-standard (experimental)
bandwidths are best measured directly using equations such as
G = Wb/4 (4.29)
or crQ = w0>1/4.292 (4.30)
where Wb and Wq ^ represent the base width and the width at 10% peak
height, in units of volume or time, whichever is appropriate.
Alternatively, the bandwidths can be calculated from their component
parameters, but this is disadvantageous in two respects. First, it
requires at least two measurements instead of one. Second, different
expressions and/or different interpretations are required for gradient
(temperature or mobile phase) elution conditions.


66
results from a normally distributed, random signal for which p = 5.
Thus in most cases the standard deviation of the chromatographic
baseline, Sg, can be estimated from one-fifth of the peak-to-peak noise,
i.e.,
SB = Np-P/5 -6b>
Two additional comments regarding the practical procedure for
measuring Sg should be noted:
1. It is recommended that the "sufficiently wide region of the
chromatogram" be at least as wide as 20 base widths of the analyte peak.
2. If systematic fluctuations in the baseline are present, a value (of
p) less than 5 should be used in eq 4.6b. If, for example, a periodic
triangular baseline (possibly resulting from flow pulsations in the
detector cell due to an insufficiently dampened solvent delivery system)
is observed, then p = 3.5 and Sg = Np_p/3.5.
Using the Correct Units
A common misconception about chromatographic LODs is that they can
be reported in units of concentration rather than amount. The fallacy
of this assumption will be shown below.
Dimensional analysis. One way of deducing the correct units of the
chromatographic LOD is by dimensional analysis. Referring to the
definition of the MD in Table 4.2, it is clear that if the appropriate
units of concentration and mass flux are used for the MD in eqs 4.3 and
4.4 for the concentration sensitive and mass sensitive detector cases,
respectively, the units for the LOD in eqs 4.3 and 4.4 must be in terms
of an amount (e.g., moles, grams, or some multiple thereof).
Another approach via dimensional analysis is to consider the right
hand expression of eq 4.1. Given the definition for the analytical
sensitivity, it is clear that the units for this term (denominator of


NORMALIZED PEAK HEIGHT
4
TIME
Figure 1.1. Graphical chromatographic parameters shown at peak height
fraction a = 0.10. Except for A, B, and B/A at a = 0.10,
all width related measurements are subscripted with the
value of a to prevent ambiguity.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EBV3XE6CF_DU1JAW INGEST_TIME 2014-11-07T19:34:52Z PACKAGE AA00026353_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


29
and RSE were computed from the known values of x, aq, tq, and t^ for a
given peak.
The CFOM equations were developed by unweighted least squares curve
fitting. The relationship between several quantities [e.g., RE(N),
(B/A)a, ha/a^] and x/a^ has been shown previously (23,31) to be
nonlinear for 0 < t/q < 0.5 and nearly linear for 0.5 < t/q 3.
Because similar relationships were observed in some of the textfiles
above, least squares fitting was limited to about the same t/q range
0.5 3 (1.09 <. B/A <. 2.7b) except for the RSE vs. B/A textfile where
the complete set of values was used in the regression analysis.
Although the least squares fittings of the various B/A textfiles were
initially judged by visual inspection and the coefficient of
determination (square root of the correlation coefficient), their final
evaluation was based on the accuracy and simplicity of the resulting
CFOM equations.
For ease
of
use,
the
CFOM equations
were first
simplified
algebraically
and
then
by
the successive
rounding of
numerical
coefficients.
The
occasional
nearness of the
decimal coefficients to
whole numbers was exploited. For example, if f(B/A) = 1.02(B/A) + 0.69,
then for 1.09 <. B/A <. 2.76, the much simpler function
f(B/A) = B/A + 0.72 is approximately the same (exactly if B/A = 1.5) and
the accuracy of this function is not significantly affected.
All CFOM equations were simplified as much as possibleany more
rounding of the coefficients will result in appreciably greater error.
Evaluation of the CFOM equations. The accuracy of the CFOM
equations was evaluated in terms of four parameters, listed in
decreasing order of importance: the percent relative error limits


62
one step in a chromatographic analysis: detection. For example, the
LOD must, by definition, include the chromatographic dilution of the
analyte, whereas the MD cannot. Furthermore, the LOD is measured
experimentally with a complete chromatographic system (including the
column) under the specific conditions of a given trace analysis; the MD,
in contrast, is measured without a column under conditions that may or
may not correspond to those of the analysis.
The two concepts may also be distinguished mathematically.
Assuming an analytical signal in terms of peak height, the relationship
for a concentration sensitive chromatographic system is (36)
LOD = (2tt)1/2 [VM(l+k)/N1/2] b MD (4.3)
where VM represents the corrected gas holdup volume in GC and the column
void volume in LC; k is the capacity factor; N is the number of
theoretical plates; and b is a unitless parameter which permits the LOD
and the MD to be defined independently of one another. For a mass
sensitive chromatographic system, the relationship between the LOD and
the MD is (37)
LOD = (2tt)1/2 [tM(1+k)/N1/2] b MD (4.4)
where tM is the retention time of an unretained solute, corrected for
gas compressibility in GC.
One final difference should be noted: An arbitrary detector signal
level of twice the peak-to-peak detector noise has been universally
agreed upon for MD calculations (in practice, at least). No such
consensus exists for the LOD.


12
Table 2.1. Minimum z Values Needed to Evaluate EMG Peaks for
Various Asymmetries (t/ojO and Starting Thresholds (B)a
X/G
B
0.001
0.01
0.1
0. 10
b
-12.9
-12.1
0.15
-10.3
- 9.6
- 8.7
0.20
- 8.6
- 7.9
- 7.0
0.25
- 7.5
- 6.9
- 6.0
0.30
- 6.8
- 6.2
- 5.3
1.00
- 4.4
- 3.6
- 2.7
3.00
- 3.6
- 2.8
- 1.9
aSee eq 2.2 and text for description of z, T/a^, and B.
Values for z have been rounded.
^An underflow error occurs z < -13, thus preventing its
measurement.


55
Conclusion
Superiority of EMG-based Equations. Although Gaussian-based
equations are somewhat simpler than their EMG counterparts in Table 3.2
(compare eq 3.11, text with eq 1, Table 3.2), the EMG equations are
clearly superior because with comparable precision (see Table 3-5) they
are equally accurate for Gaussian (or near-Gaussian) peaks and
considerably more accurate for skewed (EMG) chromatographic peaks.


97
12. P.T. Kissinger, L.J. Felice, D.J. Miner, C.R. Reddy, and R.E.
Shoup. "Detectors for Trace Organic Analysis by Liquid
Chromatography: Principles and Applications" in Contemporary
Topics in Analytical and Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 2. D.M.
Hercules, G.M. Hieftje, L.R. Snyder, and M.A. Evenson, Eds.
Plenum Press, New York, 1978, pp. 67-74, 159-175.
13. B.L. Karger, J.N. LePage, and N. Tanaka. "Secondary Chemical
Equilibria" in High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Advances
and Perspectives, Vol. 1. C. Horvath, Ed. Academic Press, New
York, 19&0, pp. 119-121.
14. L.J* Schmauch. Response Time and Flow Sensitivity for Gas
Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 31: 225-230 (1959).
15. H.W. Johnson, Jr. and F.H. Stross. Gas Liquid Chromatography:
Determination of Column Efficiency. Anal. Chem., 31: 357-364
(1959).
16. J.C. Giddings. Kinetic Origin of Tailing In Chromatography.
Anal. Chem., 35: 1999-2002 (1963).
17. R.J.E. Esser. Effect of Detector Volume on Recorded Shape of
Chromatographic Peaks Obtained by Spectrophotometric Detection.
Z. Anal. Chem., 236: 59-64 (1966).
18. H.M. Gladney, B.F. Dowden, and J.D. Swalen. Computer-Assisted
Gas-Liquid Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 41: 883-888 (1969).
19. I.G. McWilliam and H.C. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion: I.
Relaxation Time Effects. Anal. Chem., 41: 1755-1762 (1969).
20. I.G. McWilliam and H.G. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion: II.
Effect of Recorder Response Time. Anal. Chem., 41: 1762-1770
(1969).
21. V. Maynard and E. Grushka. Effect of Dead Volume on Efficiency of
a Gas Chromatographic System. Anal. Chem., 44: 1427-1434 (1972).
22. R.E. Pauls and L.B. Rogers. Band Broadening Studies Using
Parameters for an Exponentially Modified Gaussian. Anal. Chem.,
49: 625-628 (1977).
23. J.J. Kirkland, W.W. Yau, H.J. Stoklosa, and C.H. Dilks, Jr.
Sampling and Extracolumn Effects in High Performance Liquid
Chromatography; Influence of Peak Skew on Plate Count
Calculations. J. Chromatogr. Sci., 15: 303-316 (1977).
24. S.N. Chesler and S.P. Cram. Effect of Peak Sensing and Random
Noise on the Precision and Accuracy of Statistical Moment Analyses
from Digital Chromatographic Data. Anal. Chem., 43: 1922-1933
(1971).


B/A
PERCENT
ERROR
! ~
ro p ro ai ^
en G en O ai
8^7
lO.Oh


the empirical asymmetry factor, B/A, have been developed for the
accurate and precise calculation of CfOMs characterizing both ideal
(Gaussian) and skewed peaks. These CFOMs include the observed
efficiency (number of theoretical plates), N ; the maximum efficiency
sys
attainable if all asymmetry is eliminated, N : the EMG peak
luctX
parameters, tG, aQ, and t; the first through fourth statistical moments;
the peak skew and peak excess, Yg and Y^; and two new CFOMsthe
relative system efficiency, RSE, and the relative plate loss, RPL.
Equations for the number of theoretical plates and the variance (second
central moment) are accurate to within 1.5% for 1.00 <, B/A <_ 2.76.
Width and B/A at 10% peak height are recommended.
The current problems with the LOD concept in chromatography are
reviewed. They include confusing the LOD with other concepts in trace
analysis; the use of arbitrary, unjustified models; the use of
concentration units instead of units of amount; and the failure to
account for differences in chromatographic conditions (bandwidths) when
comparing LODs.
Two models are proposed for calculating the chromatographic LOD. A
new concept, the standardized chromatographic LOD, is introduced to
account for differences in chromatographic bandwidths of experimentally
measured LODs. The standardized chromatographic LOD is shown to be a
more reliable CFOM than the conventional (non-standardized)
chromatographic LOD.
vxi


50
except for eq 8, the accurate working range was thought to be 1.09 < B/A
< 2.76. Nevertheless, eqs 1, 2(a,b), 6, 7, and 10 allow accurate
estimation of NSyS> ^G Nmax and ^1 resPec6ively, for Gaussian
shaped peaks (B/A = 1.00). Although somewhat surprising, this is
explained by the near convergence of these EMG equations to Gaussian
ones when the substitution B/A = 1.00 is made in the former. The N_.,_
sys
equation in Table 3.2, for example, becomes
sys = 18.53(tR/W0.,)2 (3.11)
which is within +0.6% of the Gaussian formula
V, = 18.H2 (3.12)
CFOM equations could have been developed for asymmetries greater
than B/A = 2.76 (t/Oj-, = 3), but a sacrifice of simplicity, accuracy, or
both would have been required. More importantly, however, it was felt
that nearly all peaks reported in the literature exhibit B/A's < 2.76.
Indeed, a chromatographic system producing peaks with B/A's > 2.76 is
operating at a relative system efficiency of less than 10%.
When the EMG N__ equation was tested for asymmetries higher than
OJO
those for which it was developed, the %RE varied between -1.5% and -10%
for 2.77 < B/A < 4.00, compared to the %RE range of +70%, +110% for the
Gaussian 10% equation (Nu ).
w0.1
Real versus ideal CFOMs: column characterization. Given that peak
asymmetry is (almost) always present in any real chromatographic system,
Nsys M^, and tR represent the experimentally observed chromatographic
efficiency, peak variance, and retention time, respectively. The


78
Table 4.5. Proposed standardized LOD equations and
the corresponding chromatographic reference states
,std = [aV,ref/aV,exP] ^L.exp concentration
sensitive detector
qL,std = ^t.ref^tjexp-l qL,exp
mass sensitive
detector
LC
PGC
OTGC
V,ref(mL)
0.05
0.15
0.04
t,ref(min*}
0.05
0.015
0.026


101
College, his alma mater, for a nine-month appointment as a physical
science laboratory instructor.
Joe began his graduate study in chemistry at the University of
Florida in June of 1979. In May of 1983 he was one of eleven graduate
students selected nationally for an American Chemical Society Division
of Analytical Chemistry Fellowship. Later in 1983 he completed the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in analytical
chemistry and accepted a National Research Council Postdoctoral Research
Associateship at the National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg,
Maryland.


49
imprecision, though for B/A > 1.04 the EMG equations are more accurate.
Furthermore, as seen from Table 3.5, the change in the precision of CFOM
estimation resulting from peak model misassignment would be less
than 1%.
Double-checking the results. The universality of the relative
error approach (introduced in the Derivations section above) was checked
by the independent variation of tg and Oq over the tQ/aQ range of 10 to
5000. The generality was confirmed by identical statistical results
(%RELs, etc.) over a given B/A range (e.g., 1.09 2.76) for all CFOMs
calculated from this approach.
As an additional check on the experimental work, Mo and N_ were
c, sys
calculated by statistical moment analysis (23), using the same t^ search
algorithm as before. The agreement among the true, moment, and manual
values for both M, and Notr was within + 1 % for 1.00 < B/A <2.05 with
very little bias present in either approximation. At higher asymmetries
(2.05 < B/A < 2.76), the manual values remained within 1.5% of the
true values, but the corresponding moment values showed a significant
positive bias ranging from + 1.5$ to +5.5$. An even greater bias of
+4.4$ at B/A = 2.05 (t/o- = 2) reported elsewhere (23) was attributed to
arbitrary data truncation. This was probably the source of bias in our
statistical moment method as well, but regardless of the source of bias
the same conclusion may be drawn: at high asymmetries (2.05 < B/A <
2.76) the manual CFOM equation method is more accurate than the moment
method.
Working range of the equations. The EMG-based equations in
Table 3.2 were expected to be accurate over the asymmetry range used for
the least squares curve-fitting of the f(B/A) approximations. Thus,


19
the lower time limit to the upper time limit in increments of dt. When
the maximum is found, new lower and upper time limits [given by
t(current) 2dt and t(current), respectively] closer to the peak
maximum are set, the time increment is decreased, and the search is
begun again. The retention time, tR, is approximated by t(last)
dt .
min
The algorithm for estimating tA (or tg) is similar to the tA (or
tg) search algorithm previously discussed in that the time limits are
analogous. Since tA < tfi < tg, initial values for t-¡ and tg are easily
determined. To locate tA (or tg), the EMG function is then evaluated
from t = tg to t.j in decrements of dt (or from t^ to tg in increments of
dt) until hg^^it) < ahp. New values for t^ and tg [given by t(current)
and t(current) + dt, respectively] closer to tA (or tg) are then set,
the time decrement (increment) is decreased, and the search is repeated.
This is continued until t^ and tg are known to the desired precision; tA
(or tg) is then given by (t^ + tg)/2.
The maximum error in the values of tR, tA, tg and related universal
EMG quantities obtained via these search algorithms is presented in
Table 2.4. In all cases the error is dependent on the smallest (most
precise)
time
increment (or decrement), dtmin, used in
the
last
iteration
of
each search. In theory, dtmpn could be as
small as
desired.
Due
to the finite precision of computers, however,
the
time
increment,
dt,
would ultimately be reduced to such a low value
that
hEMG^^ = hEMG(t+dt).
(2.6)
Henceforth
the
algorithms would cease to function accurately,
if at
all.


Figure 3.1.
Dependence of
chromatographic
other CFOMs (I\l
precision on peak asymmetry for several
figures of merit (CFOMs). The precision of all
m,.
sys u2>
li
etc.) is essentially independent of peak
shape and is included in Tables 3.2-3.7.


EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF
CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT
By
JOE PRESTON FOLEY
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1983


75
reported in some instances where the particular chromatographic systems
have been optimized more than the typical system could have been.
Second, the use of standardized LODs permits a fair comparison of
trace analysis chromatographic systems in different areas, e.g., OTGC
vs. LC, or with different types of detectors (mass vs. concentration
sensitive). Such a comparison is not valid if conventional LODs are
used, even within a given area using the same type of detector.
Third, the standardized LOD facilitates the prediction of the value
of the LOD under experimental chromatographic conditions. Rearranging
eqs 4.23 and 4.24, one obtains
qL,exp =
^CTV,exp^V,ref^
qL,std
(4.
.25)
qL,exp =
Cfft,exp/ot,ref^
qL,std
(4,
.26)
Assuming q^ si_d has been reported, one merely needs to substitute values
for crv exp(or exp) in eq 4.25 or 4.26 in order to calculate q^ gxp.
Fourth, the standardized LOD can serve not only as a figure of
merit for the overall chromatographic analysis, but as a figure of merit
for the detector as well. The need for the minimum detectability (MD)
as a separate parameter (and hence, the need for a detector calibration
curve) would therefore be eliminated, resulting in a considerable
savings of time.
Numerically defining the reference states. Values for the proposed
chromatographic reference states (bandwidths) were determined by
assigning values to the component parameters [VM (or tM), k and N] and
then calculating the reference bandwidths using eq 4.27 or 4.28:
aV,ref = VM,ref(1 + kref)/(Nref}^/2
(4.27)


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
Chromatography is a well-known method for the separation and
quantitation of chemical moieties from a (sample) mixture. Over the
years several concepts and parameters, hereafter referred to as
chromatographic figures of merit (CfOMs), have been introduced to
characterize the separation and quantitation. Unfortunately, some of
the CFOMs are often difficult to estimate [those which characterize
chromatographic peaks]; others are ambiguous [e.g., the limit of
detection (LOD)]. The goal of the present work, which is introduced in
more detail in the following two sections, is the improvement of the
measurement and interpretation of these chromatographic figures of
merit.
It is beyond the scope of this work to introduce or review the
development of these CFOMs from either a historical or theoretical point
of view. Such discussions and references to additional discussions may
be found elsewhere (1-10).
Chromatographic Peak Characterization
In recent years there has been considerable interest in the
characterization of experimental chromatographic peaks. Presented in
Table 1.1 are the names, symbols, and general expressions that have
evolved for the parameters used in chromatographic peak
1


1400
1420
1440
1460
1460
1500
1520
1540
1560
1600
1620
1640
1660
1660
1700
1720
1600
1830
1860
1890
1920
1950
2000
2030
2060
2090
2120
2150
2990
3000
3020
3040
3060
3060
3100
3120
3140
3160
3300
3350
3400
3450
3500
3550
86
T = INT (TR + PT5) INT (SIG + PT5)
T = T + INT (SIG + PT5): GOSUB 3000
IF HEMG > HLOOK THEN 1420
T1 = T INT (SIG + PT5):T2 = T:DT = WUN: GOSUB 2030
IF DT < = TLR THEN 1540
GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 2030
GOTO 1460
GOSUB 3500:TB = T: GOSUB 3000
RETURN : REM END OF MAIN EMG DATA ROUTINE
REM TR SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 1720
FOR T = T1 TO T2 + DT STEP DT
GOSUB 3000
IF HEMG < HTEMP THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3350: RETURN
HTEMP = HEMG
NEXT T
A$ = "THE TR SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END
REM TA SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 1950
FOR T = T2 TO T1 DT STEP DT
GOSUB 3000
IF HEMG < HLOOK THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3400: RETURN
NEXT T
A$ = "THE TA SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END
REM TB SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 2150
FOR T = T1 TO T2 + DT STEP DT
GOSUB 3000
IF HEMG < HLOOK THEN GOSUB 3300:T = T DT: GOSUB 3400: RETURN
NEXT T
A$ = "THE TB SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END
REM EMG EVALUATION SUBROUTINE BELOW THRU LINE 3160
Y = (T TG) / SIG:E = S S / TWO S Y:Z = Y S:ZTEMP = ZERO
IF Z > = ZERO THEN 3060
ZTMP = Z:Z = ABS (Z)
NF = EXP ( Z Z / TWO) / RTTWOPI:Q = WUN / (WUN + P Z)
PQ = 0 (B1 + Q (B2 + Q (B3 + Q B4 + B5 Q Q)))
I = NF PQ
IF ZTMP > = ZERO THEN I = WUN I
HEMG = A 3 RTTWOPI EXP (E) I
RETURN
T = INT (T K5 + PT5) / INT (K5 + PT5): RETURN
T1 = T TWO DT:T2 = T:HTEMP = ZERO: RETURN
T1 = T:T2 = T + DT: RETURN
DT = DT / TEN: RETURN
T = (T1 + T2) / TWO: GOSUB 3300: RETURN
PRINT CHR$ (7): PRINT A$;B$: PRINT C$: PRINT D$: RETURN


Table
Year
1959
1959
1966
1968
1969
1969
1969
1970
1970
1971
1972
1972
1977
1977
1977
1977
1.2. Chromatographic Studies Using the Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Model
Subject in Which EMG Model Employed Reference
effects of detector response time and flow sensitivity in GC 14
determination of column efficiency in GLC 15
extracolumn contributions to band broadening 11
effect of detector volume on chromatographic peak shape 17
resolution of overlapped GC peaks via least squares curve fitting 18
effect of relaxation times on chromatographic peak shape 19
effect of recorder response time on chromatographic peak shape 20
least squares approximation of chromatograms 28
resolution of unresolved GC peaks via Newton-Raphson curve fitting 29
analysis of instrumentally distorted, overlapping curves 30
dead volume effects on efficiency in GC 21
theoretical investigation of strongly overlapped chromatographic peaks 27
improved characterization of chromatographic band broadening 25
effects of dead volume and flow rate on peak shape 22
comparison of retention, separation measurement methods 26
extracolumn effects in LC; effect of peak skew on plate count calcs 23


4 CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMIT OF DETECTION IN CHROMATOGRAPHY.... 56
Introduction 56
Identifying Current Problems 56
Literature Survey Results 56
Numerical Example 58
Solving the Problems 60
Eliminating Mistaken Identities 60
Choosing a Model 63
Using the Correct Units 66
Converting to Chromatographic Reference Conditions 70
The Numerical Example Revisited 79
Conclusion 81
5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 82
APPENDICES
A DISCUSSION AND LISTING OF THE BASIC PROGRAM, EMG-U 84
B UNIVERSAL EMG DATA AT a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 87
C DERIVATION OF Vinj>max 95
REFERENCES 96
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 100
v


Table 3.2extended.
10
M1
=
tg + t (eq 4a or eq 4b)
1.00 2.76
l+
o
D-
+ 0.2
11a
M3
=
2[x(eq 4a)]3
1.09 2.76
-2.5, +10.5
f
11b
Fj3
=
2[x(eq 4b)]0
1.09 2.76
-1.5, +16.0e
f
12a
m4
=
3^" 6uG2T4a2 9^
1.09 2.76
-3.0, +1.5
f
12b
h4
=
ii p p
3G + 6oG T4b + 9T4b
1.09 2.76
-2.0, +3.5
f
13a
YS
=
M^Ceq 11a)/[M2(eq 2a)]^/^
1.09 2.76
-1.0, +10.0
f
13b
YS
=
M^(eq 11b)/[M2(eq 2b)]^2
1.09 2.76
-0.5, +14.5e
f
14a
ye
=
M^Ceq 12a)/[M2(eq 2a)]2
3
1.09 2.76
-1.5, +14.0
f
14b
ye
=
M4(eq 12b)/[M2(eq 2b)]2 -
3
1.09 2.76
-0.5, +19.5e
f
aBased
on
tR>
Wq ^, and B/A measurements
depicted in Figure 1.1.
B/A measurements
should be made
to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.
bfirror limits are -4.0%, -1.0% for 1.00 <. B/A <. 1.09.
cError limits are 2.0% or less for 1.19 j< B/A <. 2.76.
^Error limits reported for tg/OQ = 20. For t^/o^ > 20, the error limits will be smaller than those reported.
eError limits are between + 2.0% and 5.0% for 1.19 <. B/A <. 2.76.
f
Precision of this CFOM is a function of peak shape. See plot of % RSD versus B/A in Figure 3.1.


Table 4.1. Problems with the limit of detection (LOD) concept in chromatograpy
mistakes of omission
1. Detection limits were not reported, though trace analysis was stressed.
2. Detection limits were reported, but no definition for the LOD was given.
sources of discrepancies
3. The LOD concept was confused with other concepts used in trace analysis.
4. Arbitrary LOD models were used with little or no justification.
Ln
5. Detection limits were reported in units of concentration rather than amount.
6. The effects that several chromatographic parameters have on the LOD were
unaccounted for.


REFERENCES
1. L.S. Ettre. "Evolution of Liquid Chromatography: A Historical
Overview" in High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Advances and
Perspectives, Vol. 1. C. Horvath, Ed. Academic Press, New York,
1960, pp. 2-74.
2. H.A. Laitinen and G.W. Ewing. A History of Analytical Chemistry,
The Maple Press Company, York, Pa., 1977, pp. 296-321.
3. J.A. Perry. Introduction to Analytical Gas Chromatography:
History, Principles, and Practice, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1981.
4. L.S. Ettre. Basic Relationships of Gas Chromatography, Perkin-
Elmer, Norwalk, Conn., 1979.
5. L.R. Snyder and J.J. Kirkland. Introduction to Modern Liquid
Chromatography, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York, 1979.
6. E. Grushka, N.M. Myers, P.D. Schetler, and J.C. Giddings.
Computer Characterization of Chromatographic Peaks by Plate Height
and Higher Central Moments. Anal. Chem., 41: 889-892 (1969).
7. 0. Grubner. Interpretation of Asymmetric Curves in Linear
Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 43: 1934-1937 (1971).
8. L.A. Currie. Limits for Qualitative Detection and Quantitative
Determination: Application to Radiochemistry. Anal. Chem., 40:
586-593 (1968).
9. H. Kaiser. Guiding Concepts in Trace Analysis. Pure Appl. Chem.,
34: 35-61 (1973).
10. G.L. Long and J.D. Winefordner. Limit of Detection: A Closer Look
at the IUPAC Definition. Anal. Chem. 55: 712A-724A (1983).
11. J.C. Sternberg. "Extracolumn Contributions to Chromatographic
Band Broadening" in Advances in Chromatography, Vol. 2. J.C.
Giddings and R.A. Keller, Eds. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1966, pp.
205-270.
96


79
The Numerical Example Revisited
We return to our hypothetical LOD example (Table 4.2 and associated
text) to reconcile the large differences in the reported detection
limits. Recall that since identical chromatographic detectors were
employed, the huge discrepancies were attributed solely to problems 4-6
of Table 4.1. By eliminating these problems one at a time, obtaining
identical detection limits at the conclusion, this claim will now be
proven.
The reconciliation is summarized in Table 4.6, though readers who
wish to perform the calculations will need to refer to conditions
specified in Table 4.2.
The progress of the LOD reconciliation may be noted by inspecting
either the LOD values themselves in the second and third columns, or
their ratio given in the fourth column, in orders of magnitude. The
degrees to which the given problems are responsible for the initial
discrepancy between the LODs are shown in the fifth column; they are
obtained by subtracting successive values in the adjacent column.
Three steps were performed in the reconciliation. First, the LOD
values reported incorrectly in units of concentration (mol L ) are
converted to the appropriate units of amount (mol) by multiplying by the
corresponding sample injection volumes (V^nj's). Second, these unit-
corrected LODs are then converted to values consistent with the IUPAC
model previously discussed (qL = 3 Sg/S). For case A, since Np_p = 5sB
(as discussed earlier in Choosing a Model), the LOD must be reduced by a
factor of 50/3. For case B, since Nrms = sg, no adjustment is
necessary. Finally, the IUPAC consistent LOD values are converted to


CHAPTER 2
GENERATION OF THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG) FUNCTION
AND RELATED DATA
Introduction
This chapter describes the improvements achieved by this study in
evaluating the EMG function and in obtaining the EMG data of interest.
The results of the present work are compared with those previously
obtained. In addition, the corresponding BASIC computer program, EMG-U,
is listed and discussed briefly in Appendix A. Universal EMG data are
tabulated in Appendix B. It is hoped that this will facilitate the use
of the EMG function, whenever applicable, in modeling studies in
chromatography or any other area.
EMG Evaluation
Background
Description of the EMG function. It is beyond our scope to derive
the EMG function from first principles. Those who so desire should see
the treatments given by Sternberg (11, pp. 250-253) or Kissinger et al.
(12, pp. 159-162). Their results are shown below in eq 2.1.
hfM(t)
[Aog(2)1/2/t] exp[0.5(aG/T)2
/
z/(2)1/2
- (t-tQ)/x] lexp(-x)dx (2.1)
PE -
where z = (t tQ)/aG Oq/t. (2.2)
Equation 2.1 shows that the EMG function is defined by three parameters:
9


60
Solving the Problems
Eliminating Mistaken Identities
The limit of detection has unfortunately been confused with three
other conceptsparticularly the (minimum) detectabilitywhich are also
used in characterizing chromatographic trace analyses. Table 4.3
includes symbols and definitions for all four of these concepts.
One reason that the LOD is confused with the other concepts in
Table 4.3, particularly the MD, is the redundancy in nomenclature of the
detection limit and the MD, as evidenced by the partial, but
representative list of (apparent) synonyms for these concepts (shown in
Table 4.3) which appear frequently in the literature. In general,
redundant terminology in science only serves to confuse. This is
especially true when the apparent synonyms for different concepts are
themselves quite similar. The use of these apparent synonyms should be
discontinued immediately.
Even if the confusion resulting from the redundant terminology
could be eliminated, the LOD might still be confused with the MD by the
apprentice chromatographer because their definitions, as shown in
Table 4.3 and in eqs 4.1 and 4.2, are so similar in appearance (cf.
meaning, however).
LOD = arbitrary detector signal level/S (4.1)
MD = arbitrary detector signal level/S^ (4.2)
let despite their similarities, the LOD and MD are distinct
concepts, as a closer scrutiny of Table 4.3 shows. The LOD is a general
concept characterizing any overall trace analytical procedure consisting
of one or more steps, whereas the MD is a specific term characterizing


21
As dt. is decreased, the tg search algorithm will fail first, since
the slope of the EMG function is smallest in the region of tg. Somewhat
smaller (more precise) dtm^n's could be employed in the searches for t^
and tg before the algorithm breakdown described by eq 2.6 would occur.
The increase in precision of t^ and tg is probably not worth the effort,
however, since two out of the three universal EMG data expressions are
dependent on the least precise quantity, tg
The
minimum
usable
value of
dt
depends on
the precision of
the
computer
employed
and on
the value
of
0q chosen.
In this study,
the
experimentally measured minimum ratio of dt/0Q was 0.0002 for 0.1 < t/Cq
< 3 using single precision arithmetic. Multiple precision capabilities
would allow a still lower dt/0Q ratio to be used.
Comparison. The algorithms for tg, t^, and tg may be compared as
follows:
1. With the exception of the quadratic least squares method for finding
tg, all of the methods for obtaining tR, t^, and tg are designed for
simulated data (essentially no noise).
2. The two algorithms for calculating tA (or tg) are quite similar.
Both require two points which closely bracket the desired peak height
fraction, a, and both are relatively unbiased. The subsequent
interpolation performed in the previously described algorithm is
potentially more precise than the averaging of the final time limits in
the proposed search algorithm. If t^ and tg are already known as
precisely as or more precisely than tg, however, additional improvements
in their precision, even if realized, will not yield significant
increases in the precision of B/A and (tg-tg)/aQ.
3. Our approach for determining tg, though crude, is superior to the
other three methods previously discussed for the following reasons:
i) It is a general algorithm. Whereas methods a and b are specific to
the EMG model, our search mechanisms will work for that and other peak
models as well.
ii) It is accurate and unbiased. In contrast, the quadratic least
squares fitting method, though general, suffers from a small, but
nevertheless observable bias (due to a determinate error) which
increases with increasing peak asymmetry (26).
iii) It is easy to understand and implement. The other methods are
unnecessarily complex, though they admittedly have the potential
for greater precision.


Table
3.4. Equations for Use Only in Peak Modeling3
equation
% rel
error limits3
%RSD
limits
Nsys
= 1.83(tR/W0>5)2/[(B/A)0>5 0.7]
+ 2.0
=r

+1
M2,a
= H0<52/[-b.2b(B/A)0i53+41.b(6/A)0>52-72.3(B/A)0i5+44.6]
o
<\J
+
o
1
+ 7.7
M2,b
= ^sys
+ 2.0
-=r
O'
+i
Q
O
II
W0_5/[2.5(B/4)0_5]
+ 2.0
+ 3.2
Ta =
fy 2 "I 1 /2
LM2,a aG ]
-1.0, +5.5
d
Tb =
[M2 b cr^2]^2
-1.0, +2.5
d
tu =
tR l-1.4(B/A)0i52 + 5(B/A)0<5 3.14]
+ 0.5e
+ 0.2
aBased
on tR, Wq g, and (B/A)q ^ measurements.
(B/A)q ^ measurements should be made
to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.
^Valid for 1.04 _< (B/A)g ^ < 1.70, which corresponds to 1.09 <. (B/A)q ^ <_ 2.76.
cError limits are -1.0%, +2.0% for 1.19 i (B/A)q ^ <. 2.76.
^Precision ranges from +. 24.5% at (B/A)q ^ = 1.09 to +. 3.2% at (B/A)q ^ = 2.76 in a manner similar
to the t, t/Oq curve shown in Figure 3.1.*
e£rror limits reported for tg/crQ = 20. For t^/cr^, > 20, the error limits will be smaller than those
reported.


89
a = 0.10
V a,
u
(B/A)0.1
W0.1/GG
(tR-tG)/aG
0.1
1.0013
4.3142
0.0940
0.15
1.0043
4.3412
0.1440
0.2
1.0096
4.3764
0.1916
0.25
1.0174
4.4200
0.2366
0.3
1.0278
4.4710
0.2792
0.35
1.0406
4.5292
0.3194
0.4
1 .0560
4.5932
0.3576
0.45
1 .0734
4.6628
0.3938
0.5
1.0927
4.7372
0.4282
0.55
1.1140
4.8158
0.4608
0.6
1.1367
4.8984
0.4920
0.65
1.1608
4.9844
0.5218
0.7
1.1864
5.0736
0.5502
0.75
1.2133
5.1660
0.5774
0.8
1.2412
5.2608
0.6034
0.85
1.2700
5.3584
0.6284
0.9
1.3001
5.4580
0.6522
0.95
1.3309
5.5598
0.6752
1.0
1.3621
5.6632
0.6974
1.05
1.3942
5.7684
0.7186
1.1
1.4269
5.6748
0.7392
1.15
1.4599
5.9828
0.7590
1.2
1.4935
6.0918
0.7782
1.25
1.5274
6.2016
0.7966
1.3
1.5615
6.3124
0.8146
1.35
1.5960
6.4242
0.8320
1.4
1.6307
6.5364
0.8488
1.45
1.6658
6.6492
0.8659
1.5
1.7006
6.7626
0.8810
1.55
1.7356
6.8764
0.8964
1.6
1.7712
6.9908
0.9112
1.65
1.8066
7.1054
0.9258
1.7
1.8419
7.2204
0.9400
1.75
1.8775
7.3356
0.9538
1.6
1.9128
7.4512
0.9672
1.85
1.9466
7.5670
0.9804
1.9
1.9843
7.6830
0.9932
1.95
2.0196
7.7992
1.0058
2.0
2.0555
7.9154
1.0180


EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF
CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT
By
JOE PRESTON FOLEY
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1983

To Mom and
and
Dad, for their love, support, and
to my sister Barbara, for leading
encouragement;
the way.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my research director,
John G. Dorsey, not only for helping me with various research projects,
but for being a special friendfor always finding the time to listen
and for always doing the "extra things."
Second, I want to express my gratitude to Thomas J. Buckley and
Sharon G. Lias of the National Bureau of Standards for their help and
the use of their facilities in preparing this document.
Finally, I want to thank all the friends I made in Gainesville for
making my graduate education at the University of Florida the happiest
and most satisfying time of my life.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Overview 1
Chromatographic Peak Characterization 1
Limit of Detection 8
2 GENERATION OF THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG)
FUNCTION AND RELATED DATA 9
Introduction 9
EMG Evaluation 9
Background 9
Evaluation of the Integral Term 10
Obtaining Universal EMG Data 16
Background 16
Measurement of the Pertinent Peak Parameters.. 17
Comparison of Universal EMG Data 22
Conclusion 24
3 EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC
FIGURES OF MERIT FOR IDEAL AND SKEWED PEAKS 25
Introduction 25
Derivations 25
Experimental 28
Apparatus 28
Procedure 28
Results 30
Recommended CFOM Equations 30
Other CFOM Equations 33
Discussion 39
Detailed Discussion of Precision 39
Why Measure At 10$ Peak Height? 41
General Aspects 46
Conclusion. 55
iv

4 CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMIT OF DETECTION IN CHROMATOGRAPHY.... 56
Introduction 56
Identifying Current Problems 56
Literature Survey Results 56
Numerical Example 58
Solving the Problems 60
Eliminating Mistaken Identities 60
Choosing a Model 63
Using the Correct Units 66
Converting to Chromatographic Reference Conditions 70
The Numerical Example Revisited 79
Conclusion 81
5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 82
APPENDICES
A DISCUSSION AND LISTING OF THE BASIC PROGRAM, EMG-U 84
B UNIVERSAL EMG DATA AT a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 87
C DERIVATION OF Vinj>max 95
REFERENCES 96
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 100
v

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF
CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT
By
JOE PRESTON FOLEY
December 1983
Chairman: Dr. John G. Dorsey
Major Department: Chemistry
The measurement and interpretation of several chromatographic
concepts and parameters, hereafter referred to as chromatographic
figures of merit (CFOMs) are improved via equations and concepts
developed in this work.
The previous uses of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG)
model in chromatography are briefly reviewed. A method for evaluating
the EMG function and a set of algorithms for obtaining universal data
are presented and are shown to be simpler and easier to use than those
previously reported. The corresponding BASIC program, EMG-U, is also
briefly discussed.
By use of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) as the skewed
peak model, empirical equations based solely on the graphically
measurable retention time, t^, peak width at 10$ peak height, Wq -¡, and
vi

the empirical asymmetry factor, B/A, have been developed for the
accurate and precise calculation of CfOMs characterizing both ideal
(Gaussian) and skewed peaks. These CFOMs include the observed
efficiency (number of theoretical plates), N ; the maximum efficiency
sys
attainable if all asymmetry is eliminated, N : the EMG peak
luctX
parameters, tG, aQ, and t; the first through fourth statistical moments;
the peak skew and peak excess, Yg and Y^; and two new CFOMsthe
relative system efficiency, RSE, and the relative plate loss, RPL.
Equations for the number of theoretical plates and the variance (second
central moment) are accurate to within 1.5% for 1.00 <, B/A <_ 2.76.
Width and B/A at 10% peak height are recommended.
The current problems with the LOD concept in chromatography are
reviewed. They include confusing the LOD with other concepts in trace
analysis; the use of arbitrary, unjustified models; the use of
concentration units instead of units of amount; and the failure to
account for differences in chromatographic conditions (bandwidths) when
comparing LODs.
Two models are proposed for calculating the chromatographic LOD. A
new concept, the standardized chromatographic LOD, is introduced to
account for differences in chromatographic bandwidths of experimentally
measured LODs. The standardized chromatographic LOD is shown to be a
more reliable CFOM than the conventional (non-standardized)
chromatographic LOD.
vxi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
Chromatography is a well-known method for the separation and
quantitation of chemical moieties from a (sample) mixture. Over the
years several concepts and parameters, hereafter referred to as
chromatographic figures of merit (CfOMs), have been introduced to
characterize the separation and quantitation. Unfortunately, some of
the CFOMs are often difficult to estimate [those which characterize
chromatographic peaks]; others are ambiguous [e.g., the limit of
detection (LOD)]. The goal of the present work, which is introduced in
more detail in the following two sections, is the improvement of the
measurement and interpretation of these chromatographic figures of
merit.
It is beyond the scope of this work to introduce or review the
development of these CFOMs from either a historical or theoretical point
of view. Such discussions and references to additional discussions may
be found elsewhere (1-10).
Chromatographic Peak Characterization
In recent years there has been considerable interest in the
characterization of experimental chromatographic peaks. Presented in
Table 1.1 are the names, symbols, and general expressions that have
evolved for the parameters used in chromatographic peak
1

Table 1.1. Common Chromatographic Figures of Merit
parameter
theoretical plates
retention time
empirical asymmetry factor
peak height
peak width at specified height
peak width at base
peak shape function
symbol
N
t.
M
K
1
m
B/A
VI
W,
D
h(t)
general expression
O
(retention time) /variance
peak maximum
peak centroid
peak median
see Figure 1.1
see Figure 1.1
a denotes peak height fraction
tangents drawn from inflection points
zeroth (peak area)
first (peak centroid)
2nd central moment (variance)
nth central moment
peak skew
statistical moments and related quantities
M
J0
CO
I h(t) dt
*s~ oo
/ oo
/ t h(t) dt/M0
/. 00
/ (t M.,)2 h(t) dt/M0
OO
y-* oo
(t M^j )n h(t) dt/M0
no
M3/M23/2
peak excess
3

3
characterization. The graphical chromatographic parameters are
illustrated in figure 1.1.
These CFOMs have been estimated either manually using graphical
measurements made directly from the chromatogram or by a computer
following data acquisition. Both methods have advantages and
disadvantages.
Manual methods were used exclusively at first and are employed
quite extensively today. For arbitrary peak shapes, they are accurate
for only five CFOMs: tp, B/A, hp, Wb, and W&. If a Gaussian peak shape
is assumed, however, then M^ = tR, and Mp is only a function of W'b, Wa,
or Mq and i\i may subsequently be calculated. Except for higher
even central moments, the remaining CFOMs are zero for Gaussian peaks.
For real chromatographic peaks, it is almost always a mistake to
assume a Gaussian peak shape. Experimentally these ideal, symmetric
peaks are rarely, if ever, observed due to various intracolumn and
extracolumn sources of asymmetry (5,11-23). Kirkland et al. have shown
that the plate count can be overestimated by as much or more than 100$
if any of the three most common Gaussian-based equations are
employed (23).
Computer estimation methods are more accurate than common manual
methods for a given CFOM but are not available to every chromatographer.
The general approach taken has been one of peak statistical moment
analysis (6,11,22-24). Via relatively simple algorithms all the CFOMs
may be determined quite accurately, though the precision of the second
and higher central moments is seriously affected by baseline noise (25).
The failure of the Gaussian function as a peak shape model for real
chromatographic peaks led to the search for a more accurate model and

NORMALIZED PEAK HEIGHT
4
TIME
Figure 1.1. Graphical chromatographic parameters shown at peak height
fraction a = 0.10. Except for A, B, and B/A at a = 0.10,
all width related measurements are subscripted with the
value of a to prevent ambiguity.

5
the eventual acceptance of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG), a
function obtained via the convolution of a Gaussian function and an
exponential decay function which provides an asymmetric peak profile.
The development, characterization, and theoretical and experimental
justification of this model have been thoroughly reviewed (21,22,26,27).
Previous chromatographic studies (11,12,14,15,17-23,25-31) involving the
EMG function, summarized in Table 1.2, demonstrate the utility of this
skewed peak model.
Adoption of the EMG peak-shape model has improved the estimation of
the CFOMs. A new algorithm for the computer-based peak moment analysis
has been derived (25) and tested (22) which is less sensitive to
baseline noise and the uncertainty of peak start/stop assignments. More
recently, Barber and Carr described a manual method for CFOM
quantitation which requires the graphically measurable retention time
tfl, peak width W empirical asymmetry factor B/A, and successive
interpolations from three large-scale universal calibration curves
(31,32).
The primary objective of this part of the present study is the
development, using the EMG model, of accurate equations for CFOM
calculation dependent solely on tR, WQ -¡, and B/A. The need for
computerized data acquisition is thus circumvented, and, in addition,
CFOM calculation via these equations is expected to be faster and more
precise than the other accurate manual method since no graphical
interpolation is required.
The previously reported methods for evaluating the EMG function
(14,18,19,27) and obtaining chromatographic peak data (19,26,31) were
too inaccurate or too unwieldy to use in the present study, which

Table
Year
1959
1959
1966
1968
1969
1969
1969
1970
1970
1971
1972
1972
1977
1977
1977
1977
1.2. Chromatographic Studies Using the Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Model
Subject in Which EMG Model Employed Reference
effects of detector response time and flow sensitivity in GC 14
determination of column efficiency in GLC 15
extracolumn contributions to band broadening 11
effect of detector volume on chromatographic peak shape 17
resolution of overlapped GC peaks via least squares curve fitting 18
effect of relaxation times on chromatographic peak shape 19
effect of recorder response time on chromatographic peak shape 20
least squares approximation of chromatograms 28
resolution of unresolved GC peaks via Newton-Raphson curve fitting 29
analysis of instrumentally distorted, overlapping curves 30
dead volume effects on efficiency in GC 21
theoretical investigation of strongly overlapped chromatographic peaks 27
improved characterization of chromatographic band broadening 25
effects of dead volume and flow rate on peak shape 22
comparison of retention, separation measurement methods 26
extracolumn effects in LC; effect of peak skew on plate count calcs 23

Table 1.2extended.
1978 instrumental peak distortion (review) 12
1981 graphical deconvolution of EMG chromatographic' peaks 31
1983 equations for chromatographic figures of merit Chapter 3> this work

8
employed an Apple II Plus microcomputer. This necessitated, therefore,
the development of a simpler method for evaluating the EMG function and
the incorporation of a simpler, more accurate, and more general set of
algorithms for obtaining the EMG data of interest.
Limit of Detection
The limit of detection (LOD) is generally defined as the smallest
concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected with reasonable
certainty for a given analytical procedure. Though arguably the most
important figure of merit in trace analysis, the LOD remains an
ambiguous quantity in the field of chromatography. Detection limits
differing by orders of magnitude are frequently reported for very
similar (sometimes identical!) chromatographic systems. Such huge
discrepancies raise serious questions about the validity of the LOD
concept in chromatography.
The primary objective of this part of the present work is to
restore the integrity of the LOD concept, to make the chromatographic
LOD a reliable, meaningful figure of merit. This will be accomplished
in two steps: First, the major sources of the discrepancies in
chromatographic detection limits, i.e., the current problems with the
LOD concept, will be identified. Second, each problem will be addressed
and eliminated (or circumvented).

CHAPTER 2
GENERATION OF THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG) FUNCTION
AND RELATED DATA
Introduction
This chapter describes the improvements achieved by this study in
evaluating the EMG function and in obtaining the EMG data of interest.
The results of the present work are compared with those previously
obtained. In addition, the corresponding BASIC computer program, EMG-U,
is listed and discussed briefly in Appendix A. Universal EMG data are
tabulated in Appendix B. It is hoped that this will facilitate the use
of the EMG function, whenever applicable, in modeling studies in
chromatography or any other area.
EMG Evaluation
Background
Description of the EMG function. It is beyond our scope to derive
the EMG function from first principles. Those who so desire should see
the treatments given by Sternberg (11, pp. 250-253) or Kissinger et al.
(12, pp. 159-162). Their results are shown below in eq 2.1.
hfM(t)
[Aog(2)1/2/t] exp[0.5(aG/T)2
/
z/(2)1/2
- (t-tQ)/x] lexp(-x)dx (2.1)
PE -
where z = (t tQ)/aG Oq/t. (2.2)
Equation 2.1 shows that the EMG function is defined by three parameters:
9

10
the retention time, tg, and standard deviation, cTq, of the parent
Gaussian function; and the time constant, t, 0f the exponential decay-
function. In addition, the quotient t/o^ is a fundamental measure of an
EMG peak's asymmetry. The arbitrary constant A determines the amplitude
of the function. Note that the right hand side of eq 2.1 can be broken
into 3 parts: the pre-exponential term (PE^), the exponential term
(E^), and the integral term (1^).
Discrepancies. A literature survey which I conducted revealed
three discrepancies in eq 2.1. In the first instance, a factor of 2
difference observed in the pre-exponential term, PE^, is relatively
unimportant because this affects only the zeroth statistical moment
(peak area). All other parameters, including higher order moments which
are normalized by the zeroth moment, are unchanged by this factor of 2.
The second and third discrepancies are serious, however. Both were
observed in the denominator of the second quotient, (t tQ)/T, within
the exponential term, E^. In one case, an additional factor of 2 was
present; in the other, Oq was added to this denominator and omitted from
the numerator of the pre-exponential term, PE^. These errors invalidate
those expressions for the EMG function.
Evaluation of the Integral Term
Range of z. The methods used to evaluate eq 2.1 have frequently
been omitted from the EMG literature. Since the evaluation of the first
two terms is straightforward, the reported methods differ only in the
manner in which the integral, I-j, is determined; the 1^ approximations,
in turn, depend on the value of z in the upper limit of 1^. It is
convenient to group the range of possible z values into three regions:
a) z _< -3; b)-3 <. z < 4; and c) z >. 4 In region c, the definite

11
integral equals the constant (tr)^2 to within 0.01$ and is thus
virtually independent of z. In regions a and b, however, the relative
value of the definite integral is highly dependent on z. Numerous
techniques permit the accurate evaluation of 1^ in region b. In region
a, however, as z becomes more negative, it becomes more difficult to
approximate the integral to the same (high) relative accuracy. Thus it
is pertinent to examine the practical minimum values of z for EMG peaks.
As seen from eq 2.2, z depends on a) the normalized difference
between the time of interest, t, and t^; and b) the reciprocal of the
peak asymmetry, (r/aG) For a given peak shape (constant t/q), z
will therefore be smallest (most negative) at the starting threshold of
the peak, which may be conveniently defined as that time (t) on the
leading edge of the EMG peak where the value of the function £hEMG^^
is a specified fraction, B, of its maximum value, i.e., hg^G(t)/hp = B.
Moreover, the minimum z value will decrease as the starting threshold is
decreased. This is shown in Table 2.1 where minimum z values are
tabulated for EMG peaks with asymmetries ranging from 0.1 to 3. Another
trend illustrated is that for a given starting threshold, zmpn increases
with increasing asymmetry (t/Cq).
Previous methods. Given this wide range of z values, how is 1^
(in eq 2.1) evaluated? Except for a vague reference to an unspecified
polynomial approximation (30), all previous methods for calculating I-|
employ different techniques for different values of z. For moderate z
values (e.g., regions b and c, above), some methods utilized the well-
known identity
x
exp(-y2)dy = 0.5 (tt ) 1/2[ 1 + erf(x)]
co
(2.3)

12
Table 2.1. Minimum z Values Needed to Evaluate EMG Peaks for
Various Asymmetries (t/ojO and Starting Thresholds (B)a
X/G
B
0.001
0.01
0.1
0. 10
b
-12.9
-12.1
0.15
-10.3
- 9.6
- 8.7
0.20
- 8.6
- 7.9
- 7.0
0.25
- 7.5
- 6.9
- 6.0
0.30
- 6.8
- 6.2
- 5.3
1.00
- 4.4
- 3.6
- 2.7
3.00
- 3.6
- 2.8
- 1.9
aSee eq 2.2 and text for description of z, T/a^, and B.
Values for z have been rounded.
^An underflow error occurs z < -13, thus preventing its
measurement.

13
(where erf is the error function) in order to take advantage of error
function subroutines resident in the computers used (19,27). Others
used eq 2.3, but approximated the error function by interpolation from a
set of tabulated areas (14,18). For small z values (region a, above),
the error function techniques were sufficiently inaccurate to warrant
the use of other methods instead. In nearly every instance some type of
asymptotic series was employed (14,19,27). In the lone exception, a
Gaussian function was substituted for the EMG function for any part of
the peak profile where very small z values were encountered (18).
This work. The approach taken in this study is to transform the
integral in eq 2.1 via change of variable [x = y/(2)172] to
The EMG function can now be written as
(2.4)
The integral in eq 2.4 can be approximated by a polynomial approximation
ljj(z<0) = NF(z) P(q) and l^(z>.0) = 1- l^(z<0), wher
NF(z) = exp(-z2/2)/(2Tr)172, P(q) = b^q + b2q2 + b^q^ + b^q^ + b^q^
q = (1 + pz)-' and p,b^,...,b- are constants given in Table 2.2 (33).
where
Comparison. The values obtained for 1^ are compared to the true
values (34,35) in Table 2.3 from z=-10toz>3.9. In addition, since
I4 = 11/(tt ) ^72
(2.5)
they can be compared to values obtained for I. via an asymptotic

14
Table 2.2. Constants in the Polynomial Approximation
for Ijj in eq 2.4a
p = 0.2316419
b1 = 0.319361530
b2 = -0.356563762
b3 = 1.761477937
b4 = -1.821255978
be = 1.330274429
aSee text immediately after eq 2.4 or reference 33.

Table
: 2.3. Accuracy of
the Polynomial Approximation for 1^ in
Equation 2.4'
z
lip true (34)
1^, this work
I|, previous workb
% REC
-12
d
1.83 x 10-33
1 .78 x 10"33
+ 3.1
-10
7.6 x 1024
7.77 x 10"24
7.62 x 10~24
+ 2.0
- 8
6.2 x 10'16
6.28 x 10"16
6.22 x 10"16
+ 1.0
- 6
9.9 x 10"10
9.90 x 10"10
9.87 x 10"10
+ 0.4
- 4
3.2 x 10-5
3.169 x 10"5
3.166 x 105
+ 0.09
- 2
0.0227
0.0227

< +0.01
0
0.5000
0.5000

< +0.01
2
0.9772 (35)
0.9772

< +0.01
>3.9
1.0000 (35)
1.0000

< +0.01
aSee
eqs 2.2, 2.4, and
2.1 for expressions
for z, and 1^,
respectively
bSee
reference 27 and i
note that 1^ = I^/(tt)
1/2
Percentage error in 1^, this work compared to 1^, true for z >. -2, and
compared to I-j /(tt ) ^2, previous work for z <_ -4.
Pot reported for z < -10.

16
series (27), the most accurate method reported for z < -3. (Comparison
with values for obtained via error function techniques when z > -3
(1^ > 10-3) is not illustrative since the maximum absolute error in the
polynomial approximation 1^(z) is estimated to be + 7.5 x 10^.)
Table 2.3 shows that our method for evaluating is exceptionally
accurate for moderate values of z. Moreover, it compares favorably with
the asymptotic series method for evaluating 1^, except for z < -8 where
the latter method is somewhat better. Re-examination of Table 2.1
shows, however, that for all practical purposes z > -8 whenever t/o^ _>
0.2. Thus our method for evaluation of 1^ can be used to evaluate the
EMG function to within 1 % or less for t/c^ 0.2.
While being slightly less accurate than the most accurate previous
method, the new technique for evaluating the EMG function is much more
convenient than any of the previous methods. Only one simple subroutine
requiring just a few programming lines (see lines 2990-3160 in Appendix
A) is needed, whereas the other methods require at least two
subroutines, if implemented on any computer without a built-in error
function routine (i.e., nearly all microcomputers and many
minicomputers).
Obtaining Universal EMG Data
Background
Using the polynomial approximation for the integral in eq 2.4, the
EMG function can be evaluated over the entire practical time range.
Depending on the data required for the modeling process of interest, the
EMG peaks could be generated "on the fly" as needed. Alternatively, the
necessary EMG data could be generated (and stored) in advance and
accessed when needed.
Though the storage requirements may seem

17
prohibitive for the latter, given a x/oG value and a peak height
fraction, a, three quantities completely specify an EMG peak (31).
Figure 1.1 shows an EMG peak with its pertinent graphical parameters.
Regardless of the retention time, tg, and standard deviation, cr^, of the
(unconvoluted) parent Gaussian peak (not shown), (B/A) Wa/aQi and (tg-
tG)/aG are universal constants so long as t/q and a remain fixed.
Recent work has utilized these universal data sets almost exclusively
(31).
Experimentally, three parameters must be determined in order to
calculate the universal data: tR, tA, and tg (see Figure 1.1). Note
that tR must be obtained before tA or tg because hg = hgf/jQ(tp) is needed
for the latter.
Measurement of the Pertinent Peak Parameters
Previous methods. In the past, tR has been determined by one or
more of the following methods: a) peak displacement data and knowledge
of tG (19); b) differentiation of hgMG(t) and solving for roots (26);
and c) least squares fitting of the top of the peak with a quadratic
gram polynomial (26,31).
Once tg has been found, tA and tg can be located. In the only
method reported previously, two points [t^, hEMG(t-|)], [t2, hEMG^t2^
are found so that t-¡ < tA < t2 (or t^ < tg < t2). Linear interpolation
yields the approximation for t^ (or tg).
This work. The approach for finding these quantities is based on
iterative search mechanisms, as the flowchart in Figure 2.1 shows. In
the case of tR, initial time limits are easily found using the fact that
tR is always greater than t^. The EMG function is then evaluated from

18
Figure 2.1. Simplified flowchart for locating tR (and hp), tA> or t .
The EilG peak parameters must be input before beginning this
search.

19
the lower time limit to the upper time limit in increments of dt. When
the maximum is found, new lower and upper time limits [given by
t(current) 2dt and t(current), respectively] closer to the peak
maximum are set, the time increment is decreased, and the search is
begun again. The retention time, tR, is approximated by t(last)
dt .
min
The algorithm for estimating tA (or tg) is similar to the tA (or
tg) search algorithm previously discussed in that the time limits are
analogous. Since tA < tfi < tg, initial values for t-¡ and tg are easily
determined. To locate tA (or tg), the EMG function is then evaluated
from t = tg to t.j in decrements of dt (or from t^ to tg in increments of
dt) until hg^^it) < ahp. New values for t^ and tg [given by t(current)
and t(current) + dt, respectively] closer to tA (or tg) are then set,
the time decrement (increment) is decreased, and the search is repeated.
This is continued until t^ and tg are known to the desired precision; tA
(or tg) is then given by (t^ + tg)/2.
The maximum error in the values of tR, tA, tg and related universal
EMG quantities obtained via these search algorithms is presented in
Table 2.4. In all cases the error is dependent on the smallest (most
precise)
time
increment (or decrement), dtmin, used in
the
last
iteration
of
each search. In theory, dtmpn could be as
small as
desired.
Due
to the finite precision of computers, however,
the
time
increment,
dt,
would ultimately be reduced to such a low value
that
hEMG^^ = hEMG(t+dt).
(2.6)
Henceforth
the
algorithms would cease to function accurately,
if at
all.

20
Table 2.4. Maximum Errors in the Universal
EMG Data and Selected Component Parameters
Parameter3,
Maximum Error
dtmin
tA tB
dtmin
A = tR-t^, B = tR-t
B UR
3/2 dtrain
Wa/0G = (tB_tA)/G
dt /a,
min G
(tR-tG)/aiG
dt .
min G
A, B, tR, t^, and tR defined in Figure 1.1
'B
or, tP, and dtm. described in text.
G1 G' mm

21
As dt. is decreased, the tg search algorithm will fail first, since
the slope of the EMG function is smallest in the region of tg. Somewhat
smaller (more precise) dtm^n's could be employed in the searches for t^
and tg before the algorithm breakdown described by eq 2.6 would occur.
The increase in precision of t^ and tg is probably not worth the effort,
however, since two out of the three universal EMG data expressions are
dependent on the least precise quantity, tg
The
minimum
usable
value of
dt
depends on
the precision of
the
computer
employed
and on
the value
of
0q chosen.
In this study,
the
experimentally measured minimum ratio of dt/0Q was 0.0002 for 0.1 < t/Cq
< 3 using single precision arithmetic. Multiple precision capabilities
would allow a still lower dt/0Q ratio to be used.
Comparison. The algorithms for tg, t^, and tg may be compared as
follows:
1. With the exception of the quadratic least squares method for finding
tg, all of the methods for obtaining tR, t^, and tg are designed for
simulated data (essentially no noise).
2. The two algorithms for calculating tA (or tg) are quite similar.
Both require two points which closely bracket the desired peak height
fraction, a, and both are relatively unbiased. The subsequent
interpolation performed in the previously described algorithm is
potentially more precise than the averaging of the final time limits in
the proposed search algorithm. If t^ and tg are already known as
precisely as or more precisely than tg, however, additional improvements
in their precision, even if realized, will not yield significant
increases in the precision of B/A and (tg-tg)/aQ.
3. Our approach for determining tg, though crude, is superior to the
other three methods previously discussed for the following reasons:
i) It is a general algorithm. Whereas methods a and b are specific to
the EMG model, our search mechanisms will work for that and other peak
models as well.
ii) It is accurate and unbiased. In contrast, the quadratic least
squares fitting method, though general, suffers from a small, but
nevertheless observable bias (due to a determinate error) which
increases with increasing peak asymmetry (26).
iii) It is easy to understand and implement. The other methods are
unnecessarily complex, though they admittedly have the potential
for greater precision.

22
4. The proposed search algorithms for determining tg, tA, and tg are
superior to the previous methods because they can be de-bugged more
easily. By having the time and the value of the EMG function printed
every time the EMG function is evaluated, the programmer can literally
watch the computer perform the search. Since the search logic is so
simple, programming errors are easily detected. Upon elimination of the
errors, the print statement may be removed.
Comparison of Universal EMG Data
Table 2.5 shows representative sets of universal EMG data obtained
from this study and from a previous work (32) which utilized the
quadratic least squares method and the interpolation method for the
location of tg and tA (or tg), respectively. The precision is reported
for our data (in terms of maximum errors) and is assumed to be no worse
than + 1 in the least significant digit of the previously reported data.
Several points should be noted:
1. Although this difference is slight or non-existent at high
asymmetries, the previously obtained universal data are somewhat more
precise. This is expected since the algorithms used in locating tg, tA,
and tg are potentially more precise than those developed here.
2. The data sets are in excellent agreement for all three universal EMG
quantities at low asymmetries (t/og <. 0.5). This agreement is
especially significant at t/o^ = 0.1, because it shows that the moderate
errors introduced by the polynomial approximation for Ij in eq 2.4 when
-12 < z < - (see Table 2.3) are not transmitted to the universal EMG
data.
3. Whereas the Wa/cfQ data reported previously are consistent with the
corresponding data of this study over the entire range of T/aQ, the
remaining data sets are discordant for t/ug J> 1.0. Relative to the
current data sets, the previous ones for (tG)/ctq and (B/A) aPPear to
be slightly overestimated and underestimated, respectively. This
discrepancy is due to the use of a least squares fitting method in the
previous measurement of tg which overestimates this quantity for EMG
peaks (26) and other types of skewed peaks. This bias increases from an
insignificant value at low T/aG to an observable one at t/cfg _> 1.0.
4. Despite the differences noted above, the general interlaboratory
agreement is quite good. Though the current data are more accurate,
either set of EMG data can be used with confidence for modeling studies.

Table 2.5. Comparison of Universal Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Data
Obtained from this Study and a Previous Study (32) at a = 0.10
x/crG
B/A
W/aQ
(tR-tG)/aG
This
Studya
Previous
Work Difference
This
Study5
Previous
Work Difference
This
Study5
Previous
Work
Difference
0. 1
1.0013 + 0.0003
1.00147198
+0.0002
4.3142
4.31419
none
0.0940
0.0939102
-0.0001
0.5
1.0927 + 0.0003
1.0926010
-0.0001
4.7372
4.73722
none
0.4282
0.428337
+0.0001
1.0
1.3621 + 0.0003
1.361596
-0.0005
5.6632
5.66330
+0.0001
0.6974
0.697960
+0.0006
2.0
2.0555 + 0.0004
2.05414
-0.0014
7.9154
7.91554
+0.0001
1.0180
1.01911
+0.0011
3.0
2.7659 0.0004
2.76371
-0.0022
10.2602
10.2602
none
1.2154
1.21700
+0.0016
aMaximum error reported for each B/A datum of this study.
^Maximum errors are 0.0002 for all W/c^, ^R^G^aG data this study.

24
Conclusion
Though the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) model has already
been employed in numerous studies in chromatography as Table 1.2 shows,
its usage might have been still more extensive had it not been for some
confusing discrepancies and for the overly complex methods used for its
evaluation reported previously. Hopefully the clarification of these
discrepancies and presentation of a simple method for evaluating the EMG
function and obtaining universal data will encourage more scientists in
all fields to use the EMG model, when appropriate.

CHAPTER 3
EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC
FIGURES OF MERIT FOR IDEAL AND SKEWED PEAKS
Introduction
Adoption of the EMG model for chromatographic peak characterization
results in a new set of chromatographic figures of merit (CFOMs) which
are listed in Table 3.1. These CFOMs consist of fundamental and
derived EMG parameters, the latter containing explicit expressions for
the first through fourth statistical moments defined previously in
Table 1.1. Included among these new CFOMs are the following: the
retention time, tg, and standard deviation, o^, of the associated parent
Gaussian peak from which the skewed peak is derived; the exponential
modifier, t; the fundamental ratio, t/qi which characterizes peak
asymmetry; the observed efficiency (number of theoretical plates) of a
given (asymmetric) chromatographic system, N0,rc,; the maximum efficiency
by b
a given system could achieve, N_, if all sources of asymmetry were
lUd-X.
eliminated; and finally, two CFOMs proposed originally in this work
which demonstrate how peak asymmetry drastically reduces chromatographic
efficiencythe relative system efficiency, RSE, and the relative plate
loss, RPL.
Derivations
If the estimate G obtained from using a Gaussian peak shape
equation is used to approximate the true value T of a CFOM for an
asymmetric peak, the relative error RE which results is defined as
25

26
Table 3.1. Chromatographic Figures of Merit Based on
the Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Model
Fundamental
'G*
T /an
Derived
Nsys = t//(aG2 t2)
max =
BSE = (Sys/Nmax> W2 = g2/m2
RPL = [(nax Nsys)/max] (tG/tR)2 = 1-BSE
= T/M.
M1 = tG + T
^2 = aG^ +
M^ = 2
Mi,
+ 6ar2 t2 + 9 t
Ys = M3/M2
3/2
Ye = Mn/M2 -
3

27
RE = (G T)/T (3.1)
which can be rearranged to give
T = G/(RE + 1) (3.2)
Thus, the true value T and the Gaussian approximation G for the CFOM are
related by the correction term (RE + 1) in the denominator of eq 3.2.
Kirkland et al. have shown that
RE = f(T/aQ) (3.3)
for the three popular Gaussian-based methods for determining plate
counts of a system (23). Equation 33 should hold, in fact, for any
CFOM for which a Gaussian approximation exists except tQ. Since Barber
and Carr have shown (3D that
T/aQ = f(B/A) (3.4)
successive substitution of eqs 3*3 and 3-4 into eq 3.2 yields
T = G/[f(B/A) + 1] (3.5)
Although the exact form of f(B/A) is unknown, a least squares curve
fitting of an RE versus B/A plot can give an excellent approximation.
The above approach was used for calculation of NSyS> aG, and 1Mg.
Following this,T was calculated (see sixth equation, Table 3-D by
t = [M2 -g2]1/2 (3.6)
For the determination of tG, the universal relationship
(tR tQ)/crQ = f ( VOq) (3.7)
previously reported (3D was rearranged and combined with eq 3.4 to give
tR <7Qf(B/A)
(3.8)

28
where f(B/A) was approximated by a least squares fit of (tR tG)/nG
vs. B/A.
Since tR, B/A, and WQ ^ are graphically measurable, all the
remaining CFOMs can be calculated once the fundamental parameters aG, x,
and tG have been determined.
Experimental
Apparatus
An Apple II Plus 4K RAM microcomputer was programmed in BASIC for
EMG peak generation. A curve-fitting program available from Interactive
Microware (P.0. Box 771, State College, Pa., 1801) with linear,
geometric, exponential, and polynomial capabilities was used for the
unweighted least squares fitting of various data sets.
Procedure
EMG Peak Generation. Except as otherwise noted, values of A = 1,
tG = 100, and aG = 5 were used in eq 2.4 for EMG peak generation. The
t/q ratio was varied from 0.1 to 3 in 0.05 increments producing data
equivalent to 59 peaks. The times for tR, t^, and tg (see Figure 1.1)
at a = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 for each of the 59 peaks were determined to
within 0.001, using the simple search algorithm described in Chapter 2;
corresponding values of W and B/A were then computed.
Development of the CFQM equations. Textfiles of RE(Nsys, Mg, oQ)
vs. (B/A)0>1j0<3j0_5, (tR tG)/<*G vs. (B/A)01>03>0>5, and RSE vs.
(B/A)q.ijO.5,0.5 were fflsde for 0.1 < x/aG 0*3- The Gaussian relations
aG = W0.t/4.291932 and Mg = (Wq ^/4.291932)^ were used in the Gaussian
approximations for Nsys, aQ) and Mg at a = 0.1. Similar equations were
used for Mg and a at a = 0.3, 0.5. The true values of Nsys, ctq, M2,

29
and RSE were computed from the known values of x, aq, tq, and t^ for a
given peak.
The CFOM equations were developed by unweighted least squares curve
fitting. The relationship between several quantities [e.g., RE(N),
(B/A)a, ha/a^] and x/a^ has been shown previously (23,31) to be
nonlinear for 0 < t/q < 0.5 and nearly linear for 0.5 < t/q 3.
Because similar relationships were observed in some of the textfiles
above, least squares fitting was limited to about the same t/q range
0.5 3 (1.09 <. B/A <. 2.7b) except for the RSE vs. B/A textfile where
the complete set of values was used in the regression analysis.
Although the least squares fittings of the various B/A textfiles were
initially judged by visual inspection and the coefficient of
determination (square root of the correlation coefficient), their final
evaluation was based on the accuracy and simplicity of the resulting
CFOM equations.
For ease
of
use,
the
CFOM equations
were first
simplified
algebraically
and
then
by
the successive
rounding of
numerical
coefficients.
The
occasional
nearness of the
decimal coefficients to
whole numbers was exploited. For example, if f(B/A) = 1.02(B/A) + 0.69,
then for 1.09 <. B/A <. 2.76, the much simpler function
f(B/A) = B/A + 0.72 is approximately the same (exactly if B/A = 1.5) and
the accuracy of this function is not significantly affected.
All CFOM equations were simplified as much as possibleany more
rounding of the coefficients will result in appreciably greater error.
Evaluation of the CFOM equations. The accuracy of the CFOM
equations was evaluated in terms of four parameters, listed in
decreasing order of importance: the percent relative error limits

30
($RELs) which represent the maximum possible error of the CFOM equations
within the specified B/A range; the mean percent relative error or bias,
%RE = 2%RE/n; the average magnitude of the percent relative error,
2|%RE|/n; and the standard deviation of the percent relative error.
The precision of the empirical, EMG-based CFOM equations and three
Gaussian CFOM equations was calculated via error propagation theory and
is reported as percent relative standard deviation ($RSD). The
required precision estimates of t^, W&, and (B/A) (the graphically
measurable quantities) were obtained using data from a previous
study (32).
Results
Recommended CFOM Equations
Listed in Table 3-2 are the empirical CFOM equations based on tp,
Wq i, and B/A measurements (see Figure 1.1) which we recommend.
Accuracy. Using equation 1 in Table 3.2, the true efficiency of a
chromatographic system, N_, may be estimated to within + 1.5 for both
sys
Gaussian and exponentially tailed peaks within the asymmetry range 1.00
accurate over this asymmetry range.
All CFOMs except RPL, M^, Yg, and Yg can be estimated to within
+. 5% for 1.09 <. B/A <. 2.76, the asymmetry range over which most of the
curve fitting was performed.
All CFOM equations are accurate to within + 5% for 1.19 <. B/A 2.76, and 18 out of 21 are accurate to within 2%.

Table 3.2. Recommended Equations for Chromatographic Figures of Merita
asymmetry % rel % RSD
no.
equation
range
: (B/A)
error limits
limits
1
^sys
= 41.7 (tR/W0<1)2/(B/A + 1.25)
1.00
2.77
- 2.76
-4.00
-1.5, +1.0
-10.0, -1.5
+ 2.5
2a
M2 =
W0.i2/L1.764 (B/A)2 11.15 (B/A) + 2b]
1.00
- 2.76
-1.5, +0.5
+ 2.2
2b
m2 =
tR2/Nsys
1.00
-2.76
-1.0, +1.5
+ 2.4
3
G =
WQt12/[3.27 (B/A) + 1.2]
1.09
- 2.76
-1.0, +0.5b
+ 2.0
4a
T =
[M2(eq 2a) aQ2]1/2
1.09
- 2.76
-1.0, +3.5
f
4b
T =
[M2(eq 2b) aQ2]1/2
1.09
- 2.76
-0.5, +5.0
f
h-*
5a
x/aG
= x (eq 4a)/G
1.09
- 2.76
-1.0, +4.5
f
5b
t/cg
= x(eq 4b)/aG
1.09
- 2.76
-0.5, +6.0
f
6
tG =
tR aGt-0.193(B/A)2 + 1.162(B/A) 0.545]
1.00
- 2.76
+ 0.5d
+ 0.2
7
Nmax
= 1.09
- 2.76
-0.5, +1.0
+ 2.0
8
RSE
= 0.99(B/A)"2-24
1.00
- 2.76
+ 2.0
+ 4.5
9
*
RPL
= 1 RSE
1.09
- 2.76
-6.0, +1.5
f

Table 3.2extended.
10
M1
=
tg + t (eq 4a or eq 4b)
1.00 2.76
l+
o
D-
+ 0.2
11a
M3
=
2[x(eq 4a)]3
1.09 2.76
-2.5, +10.5
f
11b
Fj3
=
2[x(eq 4b)]0
1.09 2.76
-1.5, +16.0e
f
12a
m4
=
3^" 6uG2T4a2 9^
1.09 2.76
-3.0, +1.5
f
12b
h4
=
ii p p
3G + 6oG T4b + 9T4b
1.09 2.76
-2.0, +3.5
f
13a
YS
=
M^Ceq 11a)/[M2(eq 2a)]^/^
1.09 2.76
-1.0, +10.0
f
13b
YS
=
M^(eq 11b)/[M2(eq 2b)]^2
1.09 2.76
-0.5, +14.5e
f
14a
ye
=
M^Ceq 12a)/[M2(eq 2a)]2
3
1.09 2.76
-1.5, +14.0
f
14b
ye
=
M4(eq 12b)/[M2(eq 2b)]2 -
3
1.09 2.76
-0.5, +19.5e
f
aBased
on
tR>
Wq ^, and B/A measurements
depicted in Figure 1.1.
B/A measurements
should be made
to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.
bfirror limits are -4.0%, -1.0% for 1.00 <. B/A <. 1.09.
cError limits are 2.0% or less for 1.19 j< B/A <. 2.76.
^Error limits reported for tg/OQ = 20. For t^/o^ > 20, the error limits will be smaller than those reported.
eError limits are between + 2.0% and 5.0% for 1.19 <. B/A <. 2.76.
f
Precision of this CFOM is a function of peak shape. See plot of % RSD versus B/A in Figure 3.1.

33
Except for eqs 11b, 13b, and 14b which had biases of +0.976%,
+0.820%, and +1.111%, respectively, the bias for every equation given in
Tables 3-2, 3-3 and 3*4 was less than 0.6%.
Precision Summary. For the equations in Table 3.2, the estimated
relative standard (RSD) limits obtained via propagation of error theory
for Ngys M2, Nmax, and RSE were all less than or equal to 4.5%.
R8D limits for tQ and M-j were + 0.2%.
The precision of the EMG equations in Table 3.2, the width-based
Gaussian equations, and the calibration curve method of Barber and Carr
(31) is compared for Nsys, M2, and Cq in Table 3.5. The results shown
for the Gaussian equations are valid for 50%, 30%, and 10% width
measurements because RSD(Wq = RSD(Wq 2) = RSD(Wq ^). The slightly
greater imprecision observed for the EMG equations is due to uncertainty
in the B/A measurement not required for the Gaussian equations. The
somewhat larger %RSDs for the method of Barber and Carr are probably due
to interpolation uncertainties (from the calibration curves) unique to
this method.
The precision of the remaining CFOMs in Table 3.2 was found to be
highly dependent on the peak shape. Rather than reporting RSD limits,
the RSDs for several CFOMs or groups of CFOMs have been plotted vs B/A
in Figure 3-1
Other CFOM Equations
Listed in Tables 3-3 and 3*4 are smaller sets of CFOM equations
developed only for use in determining if a real chromatographic peak is
well-modeled by an EMG peak and should not be used to routinely
calculate any CFOM (including N,re,) since they are usually less
accurate, less precise, and more complex than the analogous equations in

Table 3*3. Equations for Use Only in Peak Modeling1"
equation
% rel
error limits*3
%RSD
limits
Nsys
= 6.68(tR/W0>1)2/[(B/A)0>3 0.3]
+ 2.0%
+ 4.0
M2,a
= W0>32/[-3.85(B/A)0 33+23(B/A)0>32-47.9(B/A)0i3+38.7]
-0.5, +1.0
o
=r
+l
M2,b
= ^'sys
+ t Q
+ 4.1
G =
W0>3/t2.8(B/A)0i3 + 0.48]
-2.0, +1.0
+ 2.5
Ta =
l2,a G21U2
-0.5, +6.0C
d
II
JO
[M2,b ~ aQ2]*/2
-1.5, +9.5e
d
tG =
tR Og[0.6(B/A)Q o2 + 2.58(B/A)0 n 1.58]
+ 0.5f
+ 0.2
aBased on tR, Wq<3, and (B/A)q 3 measurements. (B/A)q 3 measurements should be made to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.
bValid for 1.06 <_ (B/A)q 3 < 2.08, which corresponds to 1.09 _< (B/A)g ^ <. 2.76.
cError limits are -0.5%, +2.0% for 1.19 <. (B/A)q ^ <. 2.76.
^Precision ranges from +. 13-9% at (B/A)q ^ = 1.09 to 2.0% at (B/A)q ^ = 2.76 in a manner similar
to the t, t/oq curve shown in Figure 3.1."
eError limits are -1.5%, +4.0% for 1.19 <. (B/A)q ^ <. 2.76.
f
Error limits reported for tG/crG = 20. For tq/ 20, the error limits will be smaller than those
reported.
4^

Table
3.4. Equations for Use Only in Peak Modeling3
equation
% rel
error limits3
%RSD
limits
Nsys
= 1.83(tR/W0>5)2/[(B/A)0>5 0.7]
+ 2.0
=r

+1
M2,a
= H0<52/[-b.2b(B/A)0i53+41.b(6/A)0>52-72.3(B/A)0i5+44.6]
o
<\J
+
o
1
+ 7.7
M2,b
= ^sys
+ 2.0
-=r
O'
+i
Q
O
II
W0_5/[2.5(B/4)0_5]
+ 2.0
+ 3.2
Ta =
fy 2 "I 1 /2
LM2,a aG ]
-1.0, +5.5
d
Tb =
[M2 b cr^2]^2
-1.0, +2.5
d
tu =
tR l-1.4(B/A)0i52 + 5(B/A)0<5 3.14]
+ 0.5e
+ 0.2
aBased
on tR, Wq g, and (B/A)q ^ measurements.
(B/A)q ^ measurements should be made
to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.
^Valid for 1.04 _< (B/A)g ^ < 1.70, which corresponds to 1.09 <. (B/A)q ^ <_ 2.76.
cError limits are -1.0%, +2.0% for 1.19 i (B/A)q ^ <. 2.76.
^Precision ranges from +. 24.5% at (B/A)q ^ = 1.09 to +. 3.2% at (B/A)q ^ = 2.76 in a manner similar
to the t, t/Oq curve shown in Figure 3.1.*
e£rror limits reported for tg/crQ = 20. For t^/cr^, > 20, the error limits will be smaller than those
reported.

36
Table 3.5. Precision3, Comparison of Three Graphical Methods for
Estimating Ngys, M2, and
method
Gaussian eqs 2.0
empirical eqs,
Table III, 2.5
this work
calibration curve
method, reported 5
previously (31)
M
2
2.0
2.4
3
G
1.0
2.0
3
3.
Reported as percent relative standard deviation ($RSD).
Precision of equations estimated via error propagation, using
data of Table 3*6.

Figure 3.1.
Dependence of
chromatographic
other CFOMs (I\l
precision on peak asymmetry for several
figures of merit (CFOMs). The precision of all
m,.
sys u2>
li
etc.) is essentially independent of peak
shape and is included in Tables 3.2-3.7.

I . I III I I 1 1 1 1
I 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
B/A
M4
^3 Xs
r, r/crG
RPL
2.5
2.8
LO
CO

39
Table 3.2. However, the accuracy and precision for M2, Oq, tG and t at
a = 0.3 and 0.5 are still sufficient to permit peak modeling decisions
to be made.
Discussion
Detailed Discussion of Precision
Shown in Table 3.6 are the precision data for t, W_, and (B/A)
used in this study. The RSD results were obtained by converting
previously reported raw precision data (32) to the form appropriate for
error propagation analysis for the conditions specified in Table 3.6.
Data excluded in the previous study for (B/A 1) were also excluded in
this analysis. The RSDs of tR, Wa, and (B/A)a for individual peak
shapes (at a given peak height fraction) were averaged as done
previously, thereby implicitly assuming the independence of the RSDs on
peak shape.
The RSDs for tR, Wa, and (B/A 1) for individual peak shapes were
originally reported relative to aQ, aG, and (B/A 1) respectively.
Multiplication by Cg/tR, ancl (B/A 1)a/(B/A) converted them to
the appropriate form.
Since the RSDs of tR, WQ, and (B/A) were assumed to be independent
of peak shape, intuitively it might seem that this should also be true
for the RSD of any calculated CFOM. This is not the case, however. For
one group of CFOMs (Nsys, M2, G, tG, Nmax, RSE, and M^), a slight to
moderate variation in their RSDs with (B/A). was observed. This can be
explained by examining the random error propagation in the general
empirical N s equation,
Nsys = (tR/Wa)2/[(B/A)a + C2J
(3.9)

40
Table 3.6. Suggested Cnromatographic Measurement Conditions and
the Resulting Precision (%RSD) Achieved for tR, W and (B/A)a
Conditions
1. Chromatogram recording rate: 1 cm/c^ (Wq ^ >. 4.3 cm)
2. Ruler resolution: 0,2 mm
3. Minimum retention distance, (tB),: 10 cm
n lam
4. Minimum peak height, (hp)min: 10 cm
Resultsa,b
CF0M
(a = 0.1) (a = 0.3)
(a = 0.5)
bR
0.2 identical
identical
bL
CL
+ 1.0 + 1.0
1.0
(B/A)a
+2.0 2.5
3-0
aData obtained from reference 32 and subsequently converted (see
Detailed Discussion of Precision) for a = 0.1, 0.5results
interpolated for a = 0.3.
b%RSD(tR) rounded to nearest 0.1%; %RSDs for Wa, (B/A)a rounded
to nearest 0.25%.

41
Assuming negligible covariances, RSD(N r_) is given by
sy o
RSD(Nsys) = {4[RSD(tR)]2 + 4[RSD(Wa)]2 +
1 2
RSD[(B/A)a]2 [(B/A)a/((B/A)a + C2)]2}172 (3.10)
3 4
Even when terms 1-3 in eq 3.10 are constant, RSD(N_,,_) will vary
somewhat with (B/A) because of term 4. Clearly this variation will be
a.
greatest
for -(B/A)a < C2
< 0. Additionally, as
C2 + -(B/A)
a
BSD(Nsys)
-* 00. For C2 = 0,
RSD(N_t._) is essentially
independent
of
(B/A)a.
Finally, for C2 >
0, a negligible to slight
variation
of
SSD(Nsys)
with (B/A) may be
3.
observed, depending on the
magnitude
of
terms 1 and 2 relative to the product of terms 3 and 4. Except for eqs
1 and 2(a,b) in Table 3-4, the RSD limits for Nsys, M2, crG, tG, Nmax
RSE, and calculated via equations in Tables 3.2, 3*3, and 3.4 varied
by less than 0.5$ for 1.00 <. B/A £ 2.76.
The remaining CFOMs (x, x/o^, RPL, M^, comprise a second
group whose RSDs are moderate to strong functions of peak shape as
Figure 3.1 shows. In every instance the imprecision is largest for the
least asymmetric peaks and smallest for the most highly skewed peaks.
Analysis of the error propagation equations show that one or more terms
within the equations get very large as the peak shapes become symmetric.
Whv Measure at 10% Peak Height?
For reasons listed below, the recommended CF0M equations in
Table 3-2 are based on (in addition to tR) the measurement of W and B/A
at 10$ peak height rather than at other peak height fractions such as
50$, 30$, or 5$:

42
1. Examination of Tables 3.2, 3-3, and 3.4 shows that many CFOM
equations at 10% are clearly superior to the corresponding ones at 30%
and 50% in terms of
a) precision (lowest RSD limits)
b) widest working range for equivalent accuracy (e.g., N )
c) simplicity for M~ (path a)
2. The N equation at 10% peak height is more accurate for Gaussian
O j b
and near-Gaussian peaks than other N g equations developed at 50%, 30%,
or 5%. For example, at B/A = 1 the relative error was +0.6%, +10.0%,
+2.0%, and +2.5%, respectively.
3. In a previously reported graphical measurement study (31,32),
statistically significant positive and negative biases were detected in
the measurement of Aq ^ and Bq respectively, resulting in a
consistent underestimation of (B/a)q ^. No such biases were detected
for Aq,i and Bq -j, and only a slight underestimation was observed for
(B/A )q. 1.
4. It is likely that RSD(Wq q^) > RSD(Wq ^), since in going from Wq -¡ to
Wq 05 the magnitude of the slope of the peak (on either side) decreases
much more rapidly than the peak width increases. Thus the precision for
the 5% CFOM equations would be poorer [assuming RSD(Wq q^) contributes
substantially to the total uncertainty].
5. Superior resolution between overlapping peaks is required for
measurements at 5% peak height than at 10%.
6. As exemplified in Figure 3.2 for N Gaussian CFOM equations based
on width measurements at 10% are mucn less inaccurate (though still
exceedingly in error) for asymmetric peaks than the corresponding
Gaussian equations at 50% (shown) and 30% (not shown). That is, the
slope of the RE vs. (B/A)a (shown for a = 0.1) plots is smaller; thus
the approximate RE correction function in the denominator of eqs 3.2 and
3.5 (text) will be less sensitive to the measurement imprecision of
(B/A)a).
7. The sensitivity of the relative error (RE) correction functions to
the (B/A)a measurement imprecision is only slightly lower at 5% than at
10% peak height (see Figure 3.2) and is insufficient to warrant CFOM
estimation at 5%.
6. As seen in Table 3.7, the RSE can be calculated much more accurately
using width measurements at 10% than at 50%, 30%, or 5%. In addition,
the precision is much better (lower RSD limits) at 10% than at 50% or
30%, and is comparable to that at 5%.
9. The empirical asymmetry factor measurement, B/A, was introduced at
10% peak height rather than at 50% or 30% because peak tailing is much
more apparent at 10%. Since then almost all empirical measurements of
asymmetry have been reported at this peak height fraction; these data
will be of little value in later years if the B/A peak height fraction
is redefined.

igure 3.2. Relative error in plate count of three Gaussian equations (based on
the indicated peak width measurements) and the EMG-based NSyS
equation (Table 3.2, eq 1) for ideal and skewed peaks.

B/A
PERCENT ERROR
200

45
Table 3-7. Comparison of the Accuracy and Precision of the
RSE Equations at a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50
equation
$RE limits
% RSD
RSE
= 1.04 L(B/A)0<05]
-2.00
-5.0, +4.5
+ 4.0
RSE
= 0.99 [(B/A)0_10J
-2.24
2. 1
+ 4.5
RSE
= 0.926[(B/A)0>30]
-3.11
-7.5, +2.3
+ 8.0
RSE
= o.913C(b/a)0<50]
-4.33
-9.0, +4.5
13.0

46
10. It is easier to mentally compute 10% of an arbitrary peak height
than 50%, 30%, or 5%.
Taken collectively, the above arguments indicate that the best CFOM
estimation is obtained from graphical chromatographic measurements at
10% peak height.
General Aspects
Preliminary modeling of experimental peaks. Chromatographic peaks
should be examined for their resemblance to Gaussian, EMG, or other peak
shapes, first by visual inspection and then from the asymmetry factor
measurement. In the unlikely event that B/A = 1, the validity of the
Gaussian model can be checked by comparing the measured peak width
ratios Wq ^ :Wq ^ :Wq ^ to the theoretically predicted ratios 0.5487 :
0.7231 : 1. For B/A >. 1.09, the validity of the EMG model can be judged
by the agreement of values of M2 and/or t, and tg determined from
both B/A and Wa measurements at a = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 (see Tables 3*2,
3.3, and 3.4).
For slightly asymmetric chromatographic peaks, the assignment of
peak shape models may be ambiguous due to the imprecise measurement of
B/A (e.g., Is a peak with B/A = 1.03 0.02 Gaussian?). Insofar as
accuracy and precision are concerned, does it matter if EMG-based
equations are used with Gaussian peaks or vice-versa? As seen from
Table 3-2, the EMG based equations for Ng M2, and Oq are accurate to
within 1.5%, +.1.5%, and + 4%, respectively, over the asymmetry range
1.00 < B/A < 1.09. Figure 3-3 shows the accuracy of the Gaussian based
equations (a = 0.1) over this same range. Clearly, little error in the
estimation of M2, ^sys and aG result from peak model
misassignments at low asymmetries (1.00 < B/A < 1.09) due to B/A

Figure 3.3. Relative error in the Gaussian standard deviation, plate count, and
second central moment for Gaussian equations based on t^, Wq ^
measurements for ideal and slightly skewed peaks.

B/A
PERCENT
ERROR
! ~
ro p ro ai ^
en G en O ai
8^7
lO.Oh

49
imprecision, though for B/A > 1.04 the EMG equations are more accurate.
Furthermore, as seen from Table 3.5, the change in the precision of CFOM
estimation resulting from peak model misassignment would be less
than 1%.
Double-checking the results. The universality of the relative
error approach (introduced in the Derivations section above) was checked
by the independent variation of tg and Oq over the tQ/aQ range of 10 to
5000. The generality was confirmed by identical statistical results
(%RELs, etc.) over a given B/A range (e.g., 1.09 2.76) for all CFOMs
calculated from this approach.
As an additional check on the experimental work, Mo and N_ were
c, sys
calculated by statistical moment analysis (23), using the same t^ search
algorithm as before. The agreement among the true, moment, and manual
values for both M, and Notr was within + 1 % for 1.00 < B/A <2.05 with
very little bias present in either approximation. At higher asymmetries
(2.05 < B/A < 2.76), the manual values remained within 1.5% of the
true values, but the corresponding moment values showed a significant
positive bias ranging from + 1.5$ to +5.5$. An even greater bias of
+4.4$ at B/A = 2.05 (t/o- = 2) reported elsewhere (23) was attributed to
arbitrary data truncation. This was probably the source of bias in our
statistical moment method as well, but regardless of the source of bias
the same conclusion may be drawn: at high asymmetries (2.05 < B/A <
2.76) the manual CFOM equation method is more accurate than the moment
method.
Working range of the equations. The EMG-based equations in
Table 3.2 were expected to be accurate over the asymmetry range used for
the least squares curve-fitting of the f(B/A) approximations. Thus,

50
except for eq 8, the accurate working range was thought to be 1.09 < B/A
< 2.76. Nevertheless, eqs 1, 2(a,b), 6, 7, and 10 allow accurate
estimation of NSyS> ^G Nmax and ^1 resPec6ively, for Gaussian
shaped peaks (B/A = 1.00). Although somewhat surprising, this is
explained by the near convergence of these EMG equations to Gaussian
ones when the substitution B/A = 1.00 is made in the former. The N_.,_
sys
equation in Table 3.2, for example, becomes
sys = 18.53(tR/W0.,)2 (3.11)
which is within +0.6% of the Gaussian formula
V, = 18.H2 (3.12)
CFOM equations could have been developed for asymmetries greater
than B/A = 2.76 (t/Oj-, = 3), but a sacrifice of simplicity, accuracy, or
both would have been required. More importantly, however, it was felt
that nearly all peaks reported in the literature exhibit B/A's < 2.76.
Indeed, a chromatographic system producing peaks with B/A's > 2.76 is
operating at a relative system efficiency of less than 10%.
When the EMG N__ equation was tested for asymmetries higher than
OJO
those for which it was developed, the %RE varied between -1.5% and -10%
for 2.77 < B/A < 4.00, compared to the %RE range of +70%, +110% for the
Gaussian 10% equation (Nu ).
w0.1
Real versus ideal CFOMs: column characterization. Given that peak
asymmetry is (almost) always present in any real chromatographic system,
Nsys M^, and tR represent the experimentally observed chromatographic
efficiency, peak variance, and retention time, respectively. The

51
corresponding CFOMs Nfflax, aQ and tG represent idealized
chromatographic parameters which would describe the system if all
sources of asymmetry could be eliminated. If all or nearly all
asymmetry is extra-column in origin, then for a given set of conditions
2
Nmax> ctg~ and are valdd descriptors of the efficiency, band
broadening, and retention characteristics of the column.
Pluralism of the method. As might be surmised from Table 3.2,
there is more than one way to calculate several of the CFOMs. The
variance, for example can be calculated via eq 2a from measurements of
WQ>1 and B/A or via eq 2b from tR and Nsys (eq 1). Generally, CFOM
estimates via the "b" equations are simpler, faster, equally precise,
but less accurate than estimates via the "a" equations. This trade-of'f
of accuracy for simplicity and speed is slight, however; in most cases
much time can be saved with little sacrifice in accuracy if the "b"
equations are employed.
Only the simplest and most accurate methods are given in Table 3.2.
Therefore, while NgyS could be calculated from its components tR, cr^,
and t (see NgyS equation in Table 3-1), this method was not reported
since it would be much more time-consuming, tedious, and in all
likelihood less accurate and less precise than the N equation in
sy s
Table 3.2.
Usefulness of RSE. RPL. The relative system efficiency (RSE) and
relative plate loss (RPL), two new parameters defined in Table 3.1, are
dualistic CFOMs. First, they can be interpreted intuitively as
Nsys/Nmax and (Nfflax Nsys)/Nmax, respectively, with a corrective
2
retention factor (tQ/tR) applied. Alternatively, RSE and RPL can be
p
viewed as the relative contributions of symmetrical ( Oq) and

52
O
asymmetrical (t ) band-broadening processes to the total system band-
p
broadening (Mg, the total variance). If can be neglected
because of its nearness to unity, the former intuitive expressions for
RSE and RPL become particularly useful. For example, the best possible
efficiency, Nmax, can be related very simply to the true chromatographic
efficiency, Nsyg, by
max = Ssys/HSE <3->3)
In fact, this approximation is good to within + 2% with an RSD limit of
5% (for 1.00 < B/A < 2.75) whenever N__ (calculated via eq 3.13) >
HI 3.X
4000. Thus, eq 3.13 can serve as a useful estimation of N for
moderate to high efficiency chromatographic systems.
Although B/A, RSE, and RPL are mutually interdependent (i.e., once
B/A has been measured RSE and RPL may be calculated) the specification
of RSE, RPL, or both in addition to the reporting of B/A greatly
enhances the qualitative description of a chromatographic system. Thus,
while B/A = 1.30 indicates that a given peak is asymmetric, the
corresponding RSE = 55% or RPL = 45£ provides a clearer indication of
the actual efficiency and how much room for improvement exists.
Figure 3-4 shows the exponential-like relationship of RSE and RPL
with B/A. Chromatographic systems with asymmetries of 1.00 and 1.10 are
operating at much different relative efficiencies, while two systems
operating at B/A = 2.00 and 2.10 are realizing nearly the same relative
efficiencies.
Alternative derivations. Two other approaches for deriving CFOM
equations were not as successful as that already described. In the
first attempt, a modification of the Carr graphical method, three
universal calibration curves were approximated by linear or quadratic

RPL
Figure 3.4. Relative system efficiency, RSE, and relative plate loss,
RPL, for ideal and skewed peaks.

54
polynomials. This approach yielded equations for cr^, t t^, and the
remaining CFOMs in terms of Wq -¡ B/A, and tR, but was unsatisfactory
for three reasons: a) an accurate but simple approximation of x/a^ in
terms of B/A cannot be obtained for the range 1.00 < B/A < 2.76 because
the relationship between them changes at B/A = 1.36 from a decidedly
nonlinear one to an almost perfectly linear one; b) the errors
introduced by the polynomial approximations tend to accumulate slightly
rather than cancel; and c) the equations derived for all the CFOMs
except x, Oq, and t^ are extremely unwieldly, e.g., eq 3.14 below,
Ngys = (tfiAw0>1)2[g(B/A)/h(B/A)] (3.14)
where g and h are second degree polynomials of B/A. A variation of this
same approach in which B/A was substituted for the original abscissa
x/aQ in the latter two calibration curves made little difference.
A second attempt, a variation of the relative error (RE) approach
utilizing (B A) as the approximation G in eq 3*5 for x, failed
because the simplest f(B/A) approximation required for sufficient
accuracy was too complex.
CFQM units. For ease of interlaboratory comparison, all non
unitless CFOMs should be reported in time units; if units of length are
chosen instead, the recorder chart speed should be specified to permit
conversion to time units.

55
Conclusion
Superiority of EMG-based Equations. Although Gaussian-based
equations are somewhat simpler than their EMG counterparts in Table 3.2
(compare eq 3.11, text with eq 1, Table 3.2), the EMG equations are
clearly superior because with comparable precision (see Table 3-5) they
are equally accurate for Gaussian (or near-Gaussian) peaks and
considerably more accurate for skewed (EMG) chromatographic peaks.

CHAPTER 4
CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMIT OF DETECTION IN CHROMATOGRAPH!
Introduction
In this chapter, the focus is on eliminating the confusion
surrounding the limit of detection (LOD) in chromatography. Some prior
knowledge of the LOD concept is assumed. This discussion primarily
applies to both gas and liquid chromatography using concentration or
mass sensitive detectors whose output is measured as peak height, though
two sections (Eliminating Mistaken Identities and Using the Correct Units)
apply to analyses using peak area as well. Ideal linear elution, i.e.,
Gaussian peak profiles, is assumed though moderate deviations can be
tolerated.
Identifying Current Problems
Literature Survey Results
Initially, to determine the sources of discrepancy in
chromatographic detection limits, we conducted a limited survey of
analytical textbooks, chromatographic monographs, and the primary
chromatographic literature. This survey revealed two mistakes of
omission, as well as four major sources of discrepancies. All six are
summarized in Table 4.1. The first two problems are blatant omissions
which discredit the work reported, at least to some degree. However,
they can be eliminated if more attention is given during manuscript
preparation, and thus may be dismissed without further discussion. The
56

Table 4.1. Problems with the limit of detection (LOD) concept in chromatograpy
mistakes of omission
1. Detection limits were not reported, though trace analysis was stressed.
2. Detection limits were reported, but no definition for the LOD was given.
sources of discrepancies
3. The LOD concept was confused with other concepts used in trace analysis.
4. Arbitrary LOD models were used with little or no justification.
Ln
5. Detection limits were reported in units of concentration rather than amount.
6. The effects that several chromatographic parameters have on the LOD were
unaccounted for.

58
remaining four problems (3-6 in Table 4.1) comprise the major sources of
discrepancy in chromatographic detection limits, and are the topics to
be addressed in this report.
Numerical Example
Before proceeding, however, a numerical example which incorporates
problems 4-6 (see Table 4.1) will be given. This example will
demonstrate to the reader the magnitude of these problems and will
facilitate later discussion. Though designed with liquid chromatography
in mind, the points made by this example apply equally well to gas
chromatography.
The initial assumptions, experimental conditions, and results of
this example are shown in Table 4.2. To avoid the confusion which it
would certainly have caused, problem #3 of Table 4.1 was not
incorporated into this example. If it had been, the results might have
been even more shocking. Nevertheless, as seen in the bottom row of
Table 4.2, the LODs for the two systems employing identical detectors
differ by three and one-half orders of magnitude!
Though a detailed explanation of this example is beyond the scope
of the present discussion, the huge discrepancy in the two LODs will be
reconciled after the last three problems in Table 4.2 are solved. This
example should awaken the reader to the seriousness of these problems
and demonstrate why they must be eliminated if the chromatographic LOD
is to be a meaningful figure of merit.

59
Table 4.2. Example of widely differing detection limits
Assumptions
1. Liquid chromatograph with UV absorbance detector
2. beers Law applies, i.e., A = ebc.
3. Analytical sensitivity, S = eb = 10,000 A L mol1
4. Peak to peak noise, Np_p = 2 x 10^ AU
5. Root mean square noise, Nrms = 1/5 Np_p
Variables Experiment A Experiment ,B
Vinj 5 uL 20 uL
L0D defn 10 Np_p/S 3 Nrffls/S
VM(mL)
k
N (plates)
Results
LODs reported
log (loda/lodb)
2.5
10
1000
0.5
3
10,000
8.7 x 106 m 3.0 x 10~9 M
= 3*5 orders of magnitude difference!

60
Solving the Problems
Eliminating Mistaken Identities
The limit of detection has unfortunately been confused with three
other conceptsparticularly the (minimum) detectabilitywhich are also
used in characterizing chromatographic trace analyses. Table 4.3
includes symbols and definitions for all four of these concepts.
One reason that the LOD is confused with the other concepts in
Table 4.3, particularly the MD, is the redundancy in nomenclature of the
detection limit and the MD, as evidenced by the partial, but
representative list of (apparent) synonyms for these concepts (shown in
Table 4.3) which appear frequently in the literature. In general,
redundant terminology in science only serves to confuse. This is
especially true when the apparent synonyms for different concepts are
themselves quite similar. The use of these apparent synonyms should be
discontinued immediately.
Even if the confusion resulting from the redundant terminology
could be eliminated, the LOD might still be confused with the MD by the
apprentice chromatographer because their definitions, as shown in
Table 4.3 and in eqs 4.1 and 4.2, are so similar in appearance (cf.
meaning, however).
LOD = arbitrary detector signal level/S (4.1)
MD = arbitrary detector signal level/S^ (4.2)
let despite their similarities, the LOD and MD are distinct
concepts, as a closer scrutiny of Table 4.3 shows. The LOD is a general
concept characterizing any overall trace analytical procedure consisting
of one or more steps, whereas the MD is a specific term characterizing

Table 4.3. Trace analysis concepts in chromatography
1. limit of detection (LOD) smallest concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected
or detection limit with reasonable certainty for a given analytical procedure
apparent synonyms3 minimum absolute quantity, minimum detectable amount, sensitivity
2. (analytical) sensitivity slope of the calibration curve signal output per unit
(S) concentration or amount of analyte introduced in a given
analytical procedure
terms specific to chromatography
3. (minimum) detectability
(MD)
minimum concentration or mass flux of analyte passing through a
detector in unit time that can be discerned from the noise with
reasonable certainty
apparent synonyms3 minimum detectable level, minimum detectable concentration
4. detector sensitivity (S^) slope of the detector response curve signal output per unit
concentration (or per unit amount/unit time) of analyte passing
through a detector
aThe use of these apparent synonyms should be discontinued immediately.

62
one step in a chromatographic analysis: detection. For example, the
LOD must, by definition, include the chromatographic dilution of the
analyte, whereas the MD cannot. Furthermore, the LOD is measured
experimentally with a complete chromatographic system (including the
column) under the specific conditions of a given trace analysis; the MD,
in contrast, is measured without a column under conditions that may or
may not correspond to those of the analysis.
The two concepts may also be distinguished mathematically.
Assuming an analytical signal in terms of peak height, the relationship
for a concentration sensitive chromatographic system is (36)
LOD = (2tt)1/2 [VM(l+k)/N1/2] b MD (4.3)
where VM represents the corrected gas holdup volume in GC and the column
void volume in LC; k is the capacity factor; N is the number of
theoretical plates; and b is a unitless parameter which permits the LOD
and the MD to be defined independently of one another. For a mass
sensitive chromatographic system, the relationship between the LOD and
the MD is (37)
LOD = (2tt)1/2 [tM(1+k)/N1/2] b MD (4.4)
where tM is the retention time of an unretained solute, corrected for
gas compressibility in GC.
One final difference should be noted: An arbitrary detector signal
level of twice the peak-to-peak detector noise has been universally
agreed upon for MD calculations (in practice, at least). No such
consensus exists for the LOD.

63
Choosing a Model
As discussed earlier, the LOD may be defined in terms of an
arbitrary signal-to-noise (S/1M) level. In our survey of the
chromatographic trace analysis literature, we found a multitude of
arbitrary S/N levels used, ranging from 2 to 10. To further complicate
matters, neither the measures of the signal (peak height, peak area,
etc.) nor the noise (peak-to-peak, root mean square, etc.) were
specified in many instances.
These inconsistencies and ambiguities are not surprising since (to
our knowledge) no standard model for the LOD has ever been proposed,
much less adopted, by any recognized organization for the field of
*
chromatography! We note specifically the omission of an LOD definition
in chromatography by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and by IUPAC in their respective publications on gas and/or
liquid chromatography nomenclature (36-41). The omission by these and
other organizations is also substantiated in two reviews (42,43).
More importantly, however, the above inconsistencies and
ambiguities can be eliminated completely if a clearly stated LOD model
is adopted. Therefore the adoption of, with minor reinterpretation, the
IUPAC model for spectrochemical analysis (44) or a model based on first
order error propagation (10) is proposed. These models are given in
eqs 4.5a and 4.5b, respectively,
LOD = 3sb/S (4.5a)
*,
(The model which the International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted in 1975 (44) was chosen specifically
for spectrochemical analysis. Though the ACS Subcommittee on
Environmental Chemistry reaffirmed this model in 1980 (45),
it did so for the area of environmental chemistry and not
specifically for the field of chromatography.)

64
LOD = 3[sb2 + Sj_2 + (i/S)2ss2]1/2/S (4.5b)
where S, i, Sg, and s^ are the analytical sensitivity (slope),
intercept, and their respective standard deviations of the calibration
curve obtained via linear regression; and sB is the standard deviation,
calculated from 20 or more measurements of the blank signal.
The factor of 3 in the numerator of the right hand expressions of
eqs 4.5a and 4.5b gives a practical confidence level of 90$ to 99.7$,
depending on the probability distribution of the blank signal and the
accuracy of Sg (10,44,46). Though smaller or larger factors could be
used instead of 3, the resulting confidence levels would be too low or
too high for practical use in most cases. Both the original proponents
of these models (10,44) and others (46) strongly recommend the use of
the factor 3. This author concurs.
Both models are proposed for adoption because it seems preferable
to let the chromatography community judge their respective merits.
Indeed, strong arguments can be made for each. The IPAC model, on the
one hand, is computationally simpler and has already been employed,
though infrequently, in the chromatographic literature. On the other
hand, the error propagation model is not really all that complicated;
many pocket calculators with linear regression capability can be easily
programmed for the error propagation model. Furthermore, the error
propagation LOD model takes uncertainties of the slope and intercept of
the calibration curve into account, resulting in a more realistic
numerical estimate.
Interpretation. The IUPAC and error propagation LOD models were
developed originally for spectroscopic trace analysis. Nearly all the

65
associated concepts, [e.g., the calibration curve, the sample (analyte +
matrix), etc.] have identical, straightforward interpretations in
chromatography. One aspect, however, does not: the measurement of Sg.
Intuitively it is clear that the chromatographic baseline is
somehow analogous to the blank signal in spectroscopy. We can now refer
to Sg as the standard deviation of the chromatographic baseline (noise).
The measurement of Sg remains unclear, however.
One possible procedure would be to estimate Sg from 20 or more
measurements of only that portion of the baseline observed at the
analyte's retention time in the absence of the analyte (when a blank
solution is injected). This is directly analogous to the measurement of
the blank signal (at the analytical wavelength) in spectroscopy. Such a
literal procedure would require at least 20 injections of blank solution
(20 blank chromatograms!) and is obviously too impractical:
1. It would be much too time consuming!
2. It may require too much blank solution.
3. Variables which affect retention would require strict control.
4. The retention time of the analyte would need to be known very
precisely.
A much more practical procedure becomes apparent if one remembers
that the standard deviation (root mean square) of a random (periodic)
signal can be closely approximated by the quotient of the range (peak-
to-peak displacement) and a parameter, p, dependent on the type of
signal, i.e.,
Signal = range/p (4.6a)
for the measurement of sg, it should be noted that the range is
equivalent to the peak-to-peak noise of the baseline, N if the
tr r
latter is measured over a sufficiently wide region of the chromatogram
which includes the analyte peak. Additionally, the baseline usually

66
results from a normally distributed, random signal for which p = 5.
Thus in most cases the standard deviation of the chromatographic
baseline, Sg, can be estimated from one-fifth of the peak-to-peak noise,
i.e.,
SB = Np-P/5 -6b>
Two additional comments regarding the practical procedure for
measuring Sg should be noted:
1. It is recommended that the "sufficiently wide region of the
chromatogram" be at least as wide as 20 base widths of the analyte peak.
2. If systematic fluctuations in the baseline are present, a value (of
p) less than 5 should be used in eq 4.6b. If, for example, a periodic
triangular baseline (possibly resulting from flow pulsations in the
detector cell due to an insufficiently dampened solvent delivery system)
is observed, then p = 3.5 and Sg = Np_p/3.5.
Using the Correct Units
A common misconception about chromatographic LODs is that they can
be reported in units of concentration rather than amount. The fallacy
of this assumption will be shown below.
Dimensional analysis. One way of deducing the correct units of the
chromatographic LOD is by dimensional analysis. Referring to the
definition of the MD in Table 4.2, it is clear that if the appropriate
units of concentration and mass flux are used for the MD in eqs 4.3 and
4.4 for the concentration sensitive and mass sensitive detector cases,
respectively, the units for the LOD in eqs 4.3 and 4.4 must be in terms
of an amount (e.g., moles, grams, or some multiple thereof).
Another approach via dimensional analysis is to consider the right
hand expression of eq 4.1. Given the definition for the analytical
sensitivity, it is clear that the units for this term (denominator of

67
eq 4.1) should be the quotient of the units of the measured signal and
the units of the independent variable. Therefore, since the units for
the noise expression (numerator of eq 4.1) are the same as those for the
measured signal, the units for the detection limit should be the same as
the units of the independent variable of the calibration curve. Thus,
to decide which units are correct for the LOD, we need only to identify
the units of the independent variable of the calibration curve, i.e., to
determine whether the chromatographic signal depends on the
concentration or amount of analyte injected.
Equations 4.7 and 4.8 (36,37) below show that the signal (peak
height, hp) is directly proportional to the maximum concentration,
Cmax det or maxi-mum flux, Fmax et f ^he chromatographic peak
flowing through the detector, which in turn are directly proportional to
the amount of analyte injected.
(4.7)
(4.8)
Thus the same conclusion is reached once again: The chromatographic LOD
must be given in units of amount, i.e., in moles, grams, or some
fraction thereof.
Identifying faulty logic. Despite these convincing arguments, some
researchers insist on reporting their chromatographic LODs in
concentration units. Their rationale might be as follows:
1. The amount of analyte injected, Qinj> is the product of the
concentration of analyte in the sample, Cpnj, and the volume of sample
injected, Vinj.
qinj Cinj Vinj
hP a Cmax,det = qinj 1,1/2 (l7r)1/2/VR
hP Fmax,det = qinj 1,1/2 (^)1/2/tR
(4.9)

68
2. From eq 4.9 it is clear that the concentration of analyte injected,
Cinj, is directly proportional to the amount of analyte injected.
Cinj = qinj/Vinj
(4.10)
3. Therefore the relative LOD (in units of concentration), C^, is
proportional to the true, absolute LOD, q^ (in units of amount).
CL = qL/Vinj
(4.11)
Though reached in a straightforward manner, the conclusion stated
above is nevertheless false. The error in reasoning is best described
as an improper or incomplete analogy. In going from a true expression,
eq 4.10, to a false statement, eq 4.11, C^nj and q^nj were replaced by
two limiting quantities and q^, respectively. No analogous
substitution was made for V^nj, however, and therein lies the error.
Vinj W vary continuously over 0 < Vinj < Vinj>max, where Vinj>max is
some limiting, maximum injection volume to be discussed momentarily.
Unless V.nj = Vinj>max, eq 4.11 is false.
A numerical example will help demonstrate the absurdity of eq 4.11.
Suppose the true, absolute LOD (q^) for analyte X had been determined
1 P
independently by two scientists using the same LC system to be 1 x 10
mol. If the scientists had used different injection volumes of 5 uL and
50 uL, according to eq 4.11 the relative LODs (C^'s) for the same
chromatographic system would be 2 x 10^M and 2 x 10-^M, respectively.
Clearly eq 4.11 is inappropriate.
The correct expression, eq 4.12 below, is obtained by using
^inj,max -*-n Place of V n j But this expression is of little value
because of the difficulty in obtaining a consistent, precise estimate of
^inj,max*
CL ^L^inj ,max
(4.12)

69
Problems with estimating the maximum injection volume. Experimen
tally, ^inj max can 136 determined by increasing Vj_nj until column over
loading or some other adverse pnenomenon is observed. This operational
definition of V_ is unsatisfactory, however, because the injection
.LilJ j) uldX
volume at which these events occur is too dependent on the experimental
conditions, e.g., the sample matrix, the percent loading of the column.
Alternatively, numerous theoretical expressions are available for
the estimation of max Though many are overly specific, a few are
completely general. Perhaps the best is one which relates V. to
inj j iuSX
the maximum tolerable degradation in resolution (5, p. 289). Our
extension of this expression is reported below as eq 4.13, and is
derived in Appendix C.
Vinj,max = 2^3)1/2 (y2 + 2y)1/2 VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (4.13a)
where y = the maximum tolerable loss in resolution due to a finite
injection volume.
Another expression based on the same criterion (maximum tolerable
loss in resolution) but derived from slightly different assumptions (36)
is shown in eq 4.13b
Vinj ,max = <2K> y VMC1 k)/N,/2 (4.13b)
where K is a parameter characteristic of the method of injection;
practical values of K range from 2 to 3.5 (ideal plug injection).
Comparison of eqs 4.13a and 4.13b reveals one of the problems with
theoretical estimates of vj_nj max: due to their extreme dependency on
the criterion selected and/or the assumptions of the derivation,
theoretical estimates of V are extremely inconsistent.
JLil J 9 illd-A.

70
Another problem with these and other general expressions is that
^inj,max is highly dependent on the value of some arbitrary parameter,
y in this example (eqs 4.13a and 4.13'd). If y = 0.04 (4% loss in
resolution), eq 4.13a becomes
V-
inj,max
vMd
k)/N
1/2
(4.14)
If y were chosen to be 0.01 or 0.10, then Vinj max would be equal to
approximately half or one and one-half times the value predicted by
eq 4.14. Since universal agreement on the value of y or some other
parameter is unlikely, the theoretical methods for estimating V. .
will continue to be imprecise.
Summary. For all the reasons discussed above, chromatographic LODs
should always be reported in units of amount, not concentration.
Converting to Chromatographic Reference Conditions
As seen from eqs 4.3 and 4.4, the LOD depends not only on the
detector characteristics (MD) but also on three chromatographic
parameters [k, N, and (or t^)] which characterize the column and the
solute. In this section a method is proposed for taking the effects of
these parameters into account, thereby solving the final problem
associated with the chromatographic LOD (see Table 4.1). Gaussian
elution profiles are assumed, though slight to moderate deviations can
be tolerated.
For a concentration sensitive detector, the relationship between
the LOD and the chromatographic parameters is given by
qL = d VM(Uk)/N1/z (4.15)
where terms of eq 4.3 [(2ir) b, MD] have been incorporated into a

71
single proportionality constant, cl. Alternatively, since VR = (1 + k)
p
and N = (V^/ay) we may write
qL = d Vr/N1/2 (4.16)
or q^ = d Oy (4.17)
where VR is the retention volume (corrected for compressibility in GC)
and Oy is the bandwidth of the chromatographic peak, in volume units.
Equations 4.15-4.17 are equivalent, and any one of them may be used
to derive an expression which accounts for the effects of these
chromatographic parameters on the LOD. For simplicity, we use eq 4.17.
Consider a LOD, qR1, obtained under one set of chromatographic
conditions, i.e., = av1. By analogy with eq 4.17,
qL1 = dov1 (4.18)
Likewise, for a LOD, q^, obtained under a second set of chromatographic
conditions,
qL2 = dav2 (4.19)
Dividing eq 4.19 by eq 4.18 and solving for q^ yields
c¡L2 = L y2/Gyl] Ql1 (4.20a)
which can also be written as
qL2 = ^R2^R13 q^-j (4.20b)
or QL2 = LVM2/VM1] [(k2 + 1)/(k1 + 1)] [N1/N2]1/2 qL1 (4.20c)
Equations 4.20a-4.20c are important for two reasons: First, they
can be used to predict the change in the detection limit when switching

72
from one set of chromatographic conditions to another. Thus they are
useful to the analyst interested in lowering the detection limits via
improvements in the chromatographic (rather than the detection) aspects
of the trace analysis. It should be noted, however, that the detection
limits cannot be lowered infinitely by such improvements. Eventually
the analysis will be optimized to the point where further improvements
in the chromatographic aspects will necessitate a reduction in sample
volume which offsets the chromatographic improvements (36). Of course,
in situations where very little sample is available, this reduction in
sample size while maintaining a constant detection limit will be
helpful.
Second, eqs 4.20a-4.20c can be used to compare detection limits
obtained under different chromatographic conditions (bandwidths).
Consider two such detection limits obtained using different
concentration sensitive detectors. These detection limits can be
compared only after one of the two detection limits is converted from
its present value obtained under a certain chromatographic bandwidth
(set of conditions) to a value corresponding to the bandwidth of the
other LOD, or after both LODs are converted to values corresponding to a
third bandwidth. Note that the latter would require an additional
conversion.
Whichever way is chosen, it should be recognized that the final
bandwidth (set of chromatographic conditions) chosen in the LOD
conversion procedure serves as a reference state and that the initial
bandwidth(s) is(are) by definition experimental states. Thus from
,exp
eq 4.20a we may write
qL,ref
[aV,ref/aV,exp] qL
(4.21)

73
where the subscripts "ref" and "exp" refer to reference and
experimental, respectively. Similar equations resulting from the
incorporation of this notation into eqs 4.20b and 4.20c are easily
inferred.
The above derivation can be repeated in an analogous fashion for
the case of mass sensitive detectors. The result is
qL,ref = [ot,ref/at,exp] qL,exp (4.22)
where is the bandwidth of the peak in time units.
Given eqs 4.21 and 4.22, the analyst now has a method for comparing
detection limits obtained under different chromatographic conditions
(states). Given two or more LODs measured under different
chromatographic states, the analyst merely converts all of them to
values corresponding to a single, arbitrary, reference state.
Though the choice of the reference state is arbitrary, the
selection of the reference state is nevertheless important. For
example, it would be counterproductive for an analyst to employ a
different chromatographic reference state each time a new group of
experimental LODs (measured under different experimental states) were to
be compared, since LODs in separate groups could not be compared if this
was done. For similar reasons, it would also be counterproductive if
each analyst or group of analysts used different reference states.
On the other hand, the reference states by definition must be
different for concentration sensitive and mass sensitive chromatographic
systems. And in addition, typical chromatographic states (bandwidths)
vary considerably in liquid chromatography (LC), packed column gas
chromatography (PGC), and open tubular gas chromatography (OTGC).

74
The logical compromise which is proposed is a fixed reference state
(bandwidth) to be used exclusively for each of the three chromatographic
areas (LC, PGC, and OTGC) in each of the two detector categories
[concentration sensitive (eq 4.20) or mass sensitive (eq 4.21)], giving
a total of six fixed references states. Furthermore, it is proposed
that the LODs resulting from the conversion to these fixed reference
states be referred to as standardized chromatographic LODs. To
emphasize this, eqs 4.21 and 4.22 may be rewritten as
qL,std =
taV,ref/aV,expJ
qL ,exp
(4.
.23)
qL,std =
tat,ref/at,expJ
qL,exp
(4,
.24)
respectively, where the standardized LODs are indicated by the subscript
"std".
Advantages of the chromatographic reference state concept and the
resulting standardized chromatographic LODs If the values for the
reference states are chosen judiciously, the resulting standardized LODs
will be superior to experimental (hereafter termed conventional) LODs in
several ways:
First, standardized LODs generally represent a more realistic
measure of the trace analysis capabilities of a given chromatographic
system, thus permitting an analyst to decide whether or not a particular
application reported in the literature will be feasible with his or her
system. Conventional LODs, on the other hand, may be very misleading.
As evidenced in the literature, many trace analyses have been performed
using chromatographic systems which have only been partially optimized,
if at all. As a result, unusually pessimistic (very high) LODs are
obtained. In contrast, some overly optimistic (very low) LODs have been

75
reported in some instances where the particular chromatographic systems
have been optimized more than the typical system could have been.
Second, the use of standardized LODs permits a fair comparison of
trace analysis chromatographic systems in different areas, e.g., OTGC
vs. LC, or with different types of detectors (mass vs. concentration
sensitive). Such a comparison is not valid if conventional LODs are
used, even within a given area using the same type of detector.
Third, the standardized LOD facilitates the prediction of the value
of the LOD under experimental chromatographic conditions. Rearranging
eqs 4.23 and 4.24, one obtains
qL,exp =
^CTV,exp^V,ref^
qL,std
(4.
.25)
qL,exp =
Cfft,exp/ot,ref^
qL,std
(4,
.26)
Assuming q^ si_d has been reported, one merely needs to substitute values
for crv exp(or exp) in eq 4.25 or 4.26 in order to calculate q^ gxp.
Fourth, the standardized LOD can serve not only as a figure of
merit for the overall chromatographic analysis, but as a figure of merit
for the detector as well. The need for the minimum detectability (MD)
as a separate parameter (and hence, the need for a detector calibration
curve) would therefore be eliminated, resulting in a considerable
savings of time.
Numerically defining the reference states. Values for the proposed
chromatographic reference states (bandwidths) were determined by
assigning values to the component parameters [VM (or tM), k and N] and
then calculating the reference bandwidths using eq 4.27 or 4.28:
aV,ref = VM,ref(1 + kref)/(Nref}^/2
(4.27)

76
t ref
^ref^ + kref)/(Nref)1/2
(4.28)
The reference values for the individual parameters were selected in
accordance with one or more of the following criteria:
1. The value represents an intermediate chromatographic performance
which is easily achieved except under unusual circumstances.
2. The value falls within a range of values reported directly in the
scientific and trade literature.
3. The value falls within a range of values calculated from column
manufacturer specifications.
4. The value falls within a previously recommended range [k onlysee
ref 12, p. 67].
The values selected for the chromatographic bandwidth component
parameters are given in Table 4.4. The resulting reference states and
corresponding standardized LOD equations are shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 and the advantages enumerated earlier conveniently
summarize the bulk of the material presented in this section. Only one
additional point needs to be made: non-standard (experimental)
bandwidths are best measured directly using equations such as
G = Wb/4 (4.29)
or crQ = w0>1/4.292 (4.30)
where Wb and Wq ^ represent the base width and the width at 10% peak
height, in units of volume or time, whichever is appropriate.
Alternatively, the bandwidths can be calculated from their component
parameters, but this is disadvantageous in two respects. First, it
requires at least two measurements instead of one. Second, different
expressions and/or different interpretations are required for gradient
(temperature or mobile phase) elution conditions.

77
Table 4.4. Proposed values for the component parameters
of the chromatographic reference states
parameter
LC
PGC
0TGC
kref
4
4
4
kref
10,000
10,000
62,50(
VM,ref(raL)
1
3
2
ppfimin.)
1
0.3
1.3

78
Table 4.5. Proposed standardized LOD equations and
the corresponding chromatographic reference states
,std = [aV,ref/aV,exP] ^L.exp concentration
sensitive detector
qL,std = ^t.ref^tjexp-l qL,exp
mass sensitive
detector
LC
PGC
OTGC
V,ref(mL)
0.05
0.15
0.04
t,ref(min*}
0.05
0.015
0.026

79
The Numerical Example Revisited
We return to our hypothetical LOD example (Table 4.2 and associated
text) to reconcile the large differences in the reported detection
limits. Recall that since identical chromatographic detectors were
employed, the huge discrepancies were attributed solely to problems 4-6
of Table 4.1. By eliminating these problems one at a time, obtaining
identical detection limits at the conclusion, this claim will now be
proven.
The reconciliation is summarized in Table 4.6, though readers who
wish to perform the calculations will need to refer to conditions
specified in Table 4.2.
The progress of the LOD reconciliation may be noted by inspecting
either the LOD values themselves in the second and third columns, or
their ratio given in the fourth column, in orders of magnitude. The
degrees to which the given problems are responsible for the initial
discrepancy between the LODs are shown in the fifth column; they are
obtained by subtracting successive values in the adjacent column.
Three steps were performed in the reconciliation. First, the LOD
values reported incorrectly in units of concentration (mol L ) are
converted to the appropriate units of amount (mol) by multiplying by the
corresponding sample injection volumes (V^nj's). Second, these unit-
corrected LODs are then converted to values consistent with the IUPAC
model previously discussed (qL = 3 Sg/S). For case A, since Np_p = 5sB
(as discussed earlier in Choosing a Model), the LOD must be reduced by a
factor of 50/3. For case B, since Nrms = sg, no adjustment is
necessary. Finally, the IUPAC consistent LOD values are converted to

80
Table 4.6. Reconciling the differences in the detection limits
from the numerical example in Table 4.2
Step
lda
LODg
Initial
8.7 x 106 M
3.0 x 10"9 M
3.5
0.6
Amount
44 pmol
60 fmol
2.9
1.3
IUPAC def'n
2.6 pmol
60 fmol
1.6
1.6
qL ,std
150 fmol
150 fmol
0.0

81
standardized LODs, thereby adjusting for differences in the
experimental chromatographic conditions (bandwidths, or states).
As seen in Table 4.6, the discrepancy between the LODs is reduced
significantly with every successive stage. It should be noted that the
largest source of discrepancy is due to differences in the experimental
chromatographic conditions (bandwidths). This demonstrates the need for
a standardized chromatographic limit of detection. Finally, the LODs in
the bottom row of Table 4.6 are identical, indicating that the
reconciliation has been completely successful.
Conclusion
Meaningful chromatographic detection limits can be obtained only if
careful attention is paid to the application of the principles which
have been discussed:
1. The limit of detection (LOD) should not be confused with the
(analytical) sensitivity (S), the minimum detectability (MD), or the
detector sensitivity (S^).
2. The experimentally observed LODs should be calculated using the IUPAC
and/or the error propagation model(s). The calibration curve should be
constructed from a plot of signal versus amount (not concentration!) of
analyte injected, thus insuring that the resulting LODs will be in units
of amount (not concentration!).
3. If obtained under non-standard conditions, the detection limits can
be standardized using the equations in Table 4.5. Standardized
chromatographic LODs are superior to their conventional (non-
standardized) counterparts for several reasons, in particular because
they permit the (valid) comparison of trace analysis chromatographic
systems in different areas (LC, PGC, and OTGC) and/or with different
types of detectors (mass and concentration sensitive).

CHAPTER 5
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
The results of this work should facilitate and encourage the study
of a number of related and unrelated topics. A few examples are given
below.
With regard to the standardized chromatographic LOD concept
introduced in Chapter 4, if open tubular liquid chromatograpy ever comes
of age, it will be desirable to extend the LOD concept to this area by
defining two additional reference states (bandwidths).
The successful generation of the exponentially modified Gaussian
(EMG) function by microcomputer and subsequent measurement of the
associated universal data should encourage others to use this realistic
model in related or unrelated modeling studies. One project which has
already been suggested by Kirkland et al. (23) is the development of a
chromatographic resolution function (equation) which is applicable to
skewed peaks as well as to ideal ones.
The equations recommended in Chapter 3 for the characterization of
skewed (ENG) and Gaussian peaks could be tested on analomous peaks
resulting from column overloading, nonlinear distribution isotherms, and
other sources of analomous peak distortion.
p
Since the graphical deconvolution of the symmetric (Oq ) and
p
asymmetric (x^) sources of band broadening is now possible via eqs 3 and
4 in Table 3.2, the next step would be the development of methods for
2 2
measuring the individual components of and t .
82

83
And finally, the relative error (fifi) approach used so successfully
in the derivation of the equations in Chapter 3 is completely general
and should be considered by other scientists for any semi-empirical
modeling in their fields.

APPENDIX ADISCUSSION AND LISTING OF THE BASIC PROGRAM, EMG-U
EMG-, the BASIC program which evaluates the EMG function and
obtains the universal data, is listed below. In addition to the
documentation supplied within the program itself and the flowcharts
given in Fig 2.1, the following should be noted:
1. By letting S = ct^/t and Y = (tt^)/CTq, eq 2.4 can be written as
hEMG(t) = £AS(2tr)1/2] exp(S2/2 SY) /exp(-y2/2)dy/(2^)1/2 (A.1)
J co
where z = Y S. (A.2)
2. To the extent allowed by BASIC, the symbolism used in EMG-U is
consistent with that in eqs A.1 and A.2 and elsewhere in the text.
Greek symbols were spelled out partially or entirely.
3. EMG-U was developed on an Apple II Plus computer and optimized for
0.1 <. x/aG <. 4 using tQ = 100, = 5, 0.001 <. dtmin <_ 1, and 0.001 <. a
< 1. Minor modifications may be required for optimum performance if
other computers or other values for the parameters are used.
4. EMG-U was designed to minimize execution time; major reductions are
not likely to be achieved unless a compiler is used.
5. Tne EMG evaluation subroutine (lines 2990-3160) may be used
independently of the other routines in EMG-U.
84

85
100 REM EMG-U EVALUATES THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG)
FUNCTION
110 REM ALSO DETERMINES TR, HP, TA, TB, B/A, W/SIG, AND (TR-TG)/SIG
120 B$ = ADD LINE":C$ = 3150 PRINT T,HEMG":D$ = "TO HELP DEBUG."
130 ZERO = 0: PT5 = ,5:WUN = 1:TWO = 2:RTTWOPI = SQR (TWO *
3- 141592654):TEN = 10:K4 = 10000:K5 = 100000: REM COMMON NUMERICAL
CONSTANTS
140 P = .2316419:31 = .31938153:B2 = .356563782:B3 = 1.781477937:B4
= 1.821255978:B5 = 1.330274429: REM CONSTANTS FOR 14 POLYNOMIAL
APPROX.
150 A = 1:TG = 100:SIG = 5: REM EMG PRE-EXPONENTIAL CONSTANTS
200 INPUT "ALPHA = (.005 < ALPHA < 1) ? ";ALPHA
220 PRINT "INITIAL,FINAL VALUES OF TAU/SIGMA (T/S)": INPUT "(0.1 <=
T/S <= 4.25) ? ";R1,R2
240 INPUT "TAU/SIGMA INCREMENT ? ";RSIZE
260 INPUT "DT MIN = ? (.001,.01,.1,1 S) ";TLR
300 REM BEGIN DISK STORAGE OF EMG DATA (OPTIONAL)
400 FOR R = R1 TO R2 STEP RSIZE
440 T = R: GOSUB 3300:R = T:S = WUN / R
480 GOSUB 1000: REM GO TO MAIN EMG DATA ROUTINE
500 BA = (TB TR) / (TR XTA):WS1G = (TB XTA) / SIG:RR = (TR TG)
/ SIG
540 BA = INT (BA K4 + PT5) / INT (K4 + PT5):T = RR: GOSUB 3300:RR
= T
600 PRINT R,BA: PRINT WSIG,RR: PRINT
700 TR = ZERO:HP = ZERO:XTA = ZERO:TB = ZERO
720 T1 = ZER0.-T2 = ZERO: DT = ZERO: HTEMP = ZERO
800 NEXT R
830 REM END OPTIONAL DISK STORAGE OF EMG DATA
850 END : REM PROGRAM HAS RUN TO COMPLETION
1000 T = TG: GOSUB 3000:HTEMP = HEMG:DT = WUN
1020 T = T + DT: GOSUB 3000
1040 IF HEMG < HTEMP THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3350: GOTO 1100
1060 HTEMP = HEMG: GOTO 1020
1080 GOSUB 3350
1100 IF DT < = TLR THEN 1160
1120 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 1620
1140 GOTO 1100
1160 TR = T2 DT:T = TR: GOSUB 3000:HP = HEMG:HLOOK = HP ALPHA
1200 T = INT (TR + WUN + PT5)
1220 T = T WUN: GOSUB 3000
1240 IF HEMG > HLOOK THEN 1220
1260 DT = WUN: GOSUB 3400
1280 IF DT < = TLR THEN 1340
1300 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 1830
1320 GOTO 1280
1340 GOSUB 3500:XTA = T: GOSUB 3000

1400
1420
1440
1460
1460
1500
1520
1540
1560
1600
1620
1640
1660
1660
1700
1720
1600
1830
1860
1890
1920
1950
2000
2030
2060
2090
2120
2150
2990
3000
3020
3040
3060
3060
3100
3120
3140
3160
3300
3350
3400
3450
3500
3550
86
T = INT (TR + PT5) INT (SIG + PT5)
T = T + INT (SIG + PT5): GOSUB 3000
IF HEMG > HLOOK THEN 1420
T1 = T INT (SIG + PT5):T2 = T:DT = WUN: GOSUB 2030
IF DT < = TLR THEN 1540
GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 2030
GOTO 1460
GOSUB 3500:TB = T: GOSUB 3000
RETURN : REM END OF MAIN EMG DATA ROUTINE
REM TR SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 1720
FOR T = T1 TO T2 + DT STEP DT
GOSUB 3000
IF HEMG < HTEMP THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3350: RETURN
HTEMP = HEMG
NEXT T
A$ = "THE TR SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END
REM TA SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 1950
FOR T = T2 TO T1 DT STEP DT
GOSUB 3000
IF HEMG < HLOOK THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3400: RETURN
NEXT T
A$ = "THE TA SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END
REM TB SEARCH LOOP BELOW THRU LINE 2150
FOR T = T1 TO T2 + DT STEP DT
GOSUB 3000
IF HEMG < HLOOK THEN GOSUB 3300:T = T DT: GOSUB 3400: RETURN
NEXT T
A$ = "THE TB SEARCH HAS FAILED!": GOSUB 3550: END
REM EMG EVALUATION SUBROUTINE BELOW THRU LINE 3160
Y = (T TG) / SIG:E = S S / TWO S Y:Z = Y S:ZTEMP = ZERO
IF Z > = ZERO THEN 3060
ZTMP = Z:Z = ABS (Z)
NF = EXP ( Z Z / TWO) / RTTWOPI:Q = WUN / (WUN + P Z)
PQ = 0 (B1 + Q (B2 + Q (B3 + Q B4 + B5 Q Q)))
I = NF PQ
IF ZTMP > = ZERO THEN I = WUN I
HEMG = A 3 RTTWOPI EXP (E) I
RETURN
T = INT (T K5 + PT5) / INT (K5 + PT5): RETURN
T1 = T TWO DT:T2 = T:HTEMP = ZERO: RETURN
T1 = T:T2 = T + DT: RETURN
DT = DT / TEN: RETURN
T = (T1 + T2) / TWO: GOSUB 3300: RETURN
PRINT CHR$ (7): PRINT A$;B$: PRINT C$: PRINT D$: RETURN

APPENDIX BUNIVERSAL EMG DATA AT a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, 0.50
a = 0.05
x/aG
(B/A)0.05
W0.05/OG
0.3
1.0331
5.1085
0.2792
0.35
1.0490
5.1612
0.3194
0.4
1.0679
5.2620
0.3576
0.45
1.0896
5.3506
0.3938
0.5
1.1141
5.4466
0.4280
0.55
1.1411
5.5494
0.4608
0.6
1.1701
5.6582
0.4920
0.65
1.2009
5.7722
0.5218
0.7
1.2337
5.8912
0.5502
0.75
1.2679
6.0146
0.5774
0.6
1.3037
6.1416
0.6034
0.65
1.3404
6.2722
0.6284
0.9
1.3783
6.4056
0.6522
0.95
1.4170
6.5414
0.6752
1.0
1.4563
6.6796
0.6974
1.05
1.4964
6.8196
0.7186
1.1
1.5366
6.9610
0.7392
1.15
1.5776
7.1040
0.7590
1.2
1.6189
7.2482
0.7782
1.25
1.6605
7.3934
0.7966
1.3
1.7022
7.5392
0.8146
1.35
1.7441
7.6862
0.8320
1.4
1.7662
7.8336
0.8486
1.45
1.8285
7.9816
0.8650
1.5
1.8706
8.1302
0.8810
1.55
1.9132
8.2792
0.8964
1.6
1.9555
8.4286
0.9114
1.65
1.9982
8.5784
0.9258
1.7
2.0407
6.7286
0.9400
1.75
2.0833
8.8788
0.9538
1.8
2.1259
9.0296
0.9672
1.65
2.1685
9.1804
0.9804
1.9
2.2111
9.3314
0.9932
1.95
2.2535
9.4826
1.0058
2.0
2.2961
9.6336
1.0180
87

CM CM
88
t/aG
(b/a)0.05
W0.05/aG
(tR-tG)/a
2.05
2.3367
9.7856
1 .0298
2. 1
2.3813
9.9370
1.0414
2.15
2.4237
10.0890
1.0528
2.2
2.4662
10.2406
1.0640
2.25
2.5064
10.3926
1.0750
2.3
2.5509
10.5448
1.0856
2.35
2.5934
10.6968
1.0960
2.4
2.6355
10.6490
1.1064
2.45
2.6778
11.0010
1.1164
2.5
2.7200
11.1534
1.1262
2.55
2.7620
11.3056
1.1360
2.6
2.8044
11.4580
1.1454
2.65
2.8465
11.6104
1.1546
2.7
2.8885
11.7628
1.1638
2.75
2.9303
11.9152
1.1728
2.8
2.9723
12.0678
1.1816
2.85
3.0143
12.2202
1.1902
2.9
3.0561
12.3726
1.1988
2.95
3.0978
12.5252
1.2072
3.0
3.1395
12.6776
1.2154

89
a = 0.10
V a,
u
(B/A)0.1
W0.1/GG
(tR-tG)/aG
0.1
1.0013
4.3142
0.0940
0.15
1.0043
4.3412
0.1440
0.2
1.0096
4.3764
0.1916
0.25
1.0174
4.4200
0.2366
0.3
1.0278
4.4710
0.2792
0.35
1.0406
4.5292
0.3194
0.4
1 .0560
4.5932
0.3576
0.45
1 .0734
4.6628
0.3938
0.5
1.0927
4.7372
0.4282
0.55
1.1140
4.8158
0.4608
0.6
1.1367
4.8984
0.4920
0.65
1.1608
4.9844
0.5218
0.7
1.1864
5.0736
0.5502
0.75
1.2133
5.1660
0.5774
0.8
1.2412
5.2608
0.6034
0.85
1.2700
5.3584
0.6284
0.9
1.3001
5.4580
0.6522
0.95
1.3309
5.5598
0.6752
1.0
1.3621
5.6632
0.6974
1.05
1.3942
5.7684
0.7186
1.1
1.4269
5.6748
0.7392
1.15
1.4599
5.9828
0.7590
1.2
1.4935
6.0918
0.7782
1.25
1.5274
6.2016
0.7966
1.3
1.5615
6.3124
0.8146
1.35
1.5960
6.4242
0.8320
1.4
1.6307
6.5364
0.8488
1.45
1.6658
6.6492
0.8659
1.5
1.7006
6.7626
0.8810
1.55
1.7356
6.8764
0.8964
1.6
1.7712
6.9908
0.9112
1.65
1.8066
7.1054
0.9258
1.7
1.8419
7.2204
0.9400
1.75
1.8775
7.3356
0.9538
1.6
1.9128
7.4512
0.9672
1.85
1.9466
7.5670
0.9804
1.9
1.9843
7.6830
0.9932
1.95
2.0196
7.7992
1.0058
2.0
2.0555
7.9154
1.0180

90
VaG
(B/A) o.1
W0.1/aG
(tfi-tG)/0G
2.05
2.0913
8.0320
1.0298
2.1
2.1270
8.1486
1.0414
2.15
2.1627
8.2652
1.0528
2.2
2.1985
8.3822
1.0640
2.25
2.2340
8.4992
1.0750
2.3
2.2697
8.6160
1.0856
2.35
2.3054
8.7332
1.0960
2.4
2.3^09
8.8504
1.1064
2.45
2.3765
8.9676
1.1160
2.5
2.4122
9.0850
1.1262
2.55
2.4475
9.2024
1.1360
2.6
2.4831
9.3198
1.1454
2.65
2.5184
9.4374
1.1548
2.7
2.5541
9.5546
1.1638
2.75
2.5893
9.6722
1.1728
2.6
2.6249
9.7898
1.1816
2.85
2.6603
9.9074
1.1902
2.9
2.6955
10.0248
1.1988
2.95
2.7307
10.1426
1.2072
3.0
2.7659
10.2602
1.2154

91
a = 0.30
T/aG
(b/A)0.3
W0.3/aG
(tp-tQ)/^
0.3
1.0185
3.2246
0.2792
0.35
1.0268
3.2616
0.3194
0.4
1.0366
3-3014
0.3576
0.45
1.0474
3.3434
0.3938
0.5
1.0592
3.3878
0.4282
0.55
1.0722
3.4336
0.4608
0.6
1.0857
3.4806
0.4920
0.65
1.0998
3.5290
0.5218
0.7
1.1149
3.5784
0.5502
0.75
1.1303
3.6288
0.5774
0.6
1.1463
3.6800
0.6034
0.65
1.1627
3.7316
0.6284
0.9
1.1800
3.7844
0.6522
0.S5
1.1973
3.8374
0.6752
1.0
1.2151
3.8914
0.6974
1.05
1.2334
3.9456
0.7186
1.1
1.2520
4.0004
0.7392
1.15
1.2709
4.0558
0.7590
1.2
1.2900
4.1114
0.7782
1.25
1.3095
4.1678
0.7966
1.3
1.3293
4.2244
0.8146
1.35
1.3493
4.2814
0.8320
1.4
1.3696
4.3388
0.8488
1.45
1.3902
4.3966
0.8650
1.5
1.4108
4.4546
0.8810
1.55
1.4317
4.5132
0.8964
1.6
1.4527
4.5718
0.9114
1.65
1.4742
4.6308
0.9256
1.7
1.4955
4.6900
0.9400
1.75
1.5170
4.7496
0.9538
1.8
1.5387
4.8094
0.9672
1.65
1.5606
4.8692
0.9804
1.9
1.5825
4.9294
0.9932
1.95
1.6043
4.9898
1.0058
2.0
1.6263
5.0504
1.0180

92
t/og
(B/A)0.3
W0.3/aG
(tf-t)/a(
2.05
1.6486
5.1108
1.0298
2.1
1.6710
5.1716
1.0414
2.15
1.6933
5.2326
1.0528
2.2
1.7155
5.2936
1.0640
2.25
1.7379
5.3548
1.0750
2.3
1.7604
5.4160
1.0850
2.35
1.7829
5.4774
1.0960
2.4
1.8053
5.5388
1.1064
2.45
1.8279
5.6004
1.1164
2.5
1.8507
5.6620
1.1262
2.55
1.8730
5.7236
1.1360
2.6
1.8959
5.7854
1.1454
2.65
1.9186
5.8472
1.1548
2.7
1.9413
5.9090
1.1638
2.75
1.9639
5.9710
1.1728
2.8
1.9865
6.0328
1.1816
2.85
2.0092
6.0948
1.1902
2.9
2.0317
6.1568
1.1988
2.95
2.0544
6.2188
1.2072
3.0
2.0771
6.2810
1.2154

93
a = 0.50
T/0q
(b/A)q.5
W0.5/aG
(tR-tG)/aG
0.3
1.0133
2.4442
0.2792
0.35
1.0195
2.4706
0.3194
0.4
1.0264
2.4986
0.3576
0.45
1.0341
2.5284
0.3938
0.5
1.0425
2.5588
0.4282
0.55
1.0515
2.5902
0.4608
0.6
1.0606
2.6226
0.4920
0.65
1.0705
2.6552
0.5218
0.7
1.0807
2.6882
0.5502
0.75
1.0911
2.7214
0.5774
0.8
1.1018
2.7550
0.6034
0.85
1.1127
2.7888
0.6284
0.9
1.1242
2.8226
0.6522
0.95
1.1354
2.8568
0.6752
1.0
1.1471
2.8908
0.6974
1.05
1.1591
2.9252
0.7186
1. 1
1.1709
2.9594
0.7392
1.15
1.1632
2.9940
0.7590
1.2
1.1954
3.0284
0.7782
1.25
1.2079
3.0628
0.7966
1.3
1.2204
3.0974
0.8146
1.35
1.2331
3.1322
0.8320
1.4
1.2460
3.1668
0.8488
1.45
1.2593
3.2014
0.8650
1.5
1.2720
3.2362
0.8810
1.55
1.2652
3.2710
0.8964
1.6
1.2984
3.3060
0.9114
1.65
1.3120
3.3408
0.9258
1.7
1.3254
3-3756
0.9400
1.75
1.3390
3.4108
0.9538
1.8
1.3527
3.4458
0.9672
1.85
1.3663
3.4806
0.9804
1.9
1.3802
3.5160
0.9932
1.95
1.3940
3.5512
1.0058
2.0
1.4079
3.5864
1.0180

94
VaG
(fi/A)0.5
W0.5/aG
(tp-tjO/a,
2.05
1.4222
3.6216
1.0298
2.1
1.4364
3.6570
1.0414
2.15
1.4505
3.6924
1.0528
2.2
1.4646
3.7280
1.0640
2.25
1.4789
3.7634
1.0750
2.3
1.4933
3.7988
1.0856
2.35
1.5078
3.8344
1.0960
2.4
1.5220
3.8702
1.1064
2.45
1.5366
3.9058
1.1164
2.5
1.5511
3.9414
1.1262
2.55
1.5656
3.9772
1.1360
2.6
1.5804
4.0130
1.1454
2.65
1.5953
4.0486
1.1546
2.7
1.6098
4.0844
1.1638
2.75
1.6245
4.1204
1.1728
2.6
1.6393
4.1564
1.1816
2.85
1.6543
4.1922
1.1902
2.9
1.6690
4.2282
1.1988
2.95
1.6837
4.2644
1.2072
3-0
1.6988
4.3002
1.2154

APPENDIX CDERIVATION OF Vinj>max
We begin with a previously derived expression (5, p. 289) which
relates the peak volume observed for a finite size sample, Vw, to the
volume of injected sample, Vbnj, and to the peak volume observed for a
very small sample, Vp
v2 = Vp2 +4/3(VinJ)2 u.1)
Let Vw = (y + 1)Vp (A.2)
where y = loss in resolution due to a finite injection volume.
Substituting eq A.2 into eq A.1 and solving for Vinj yields
Vinj = C3/4(y2 + 2y)]1/2 Vp (A.3)
We now express V in terms of N, k, and using eqs A.4-A.6, assuming
Vp = vb* volume corresponding to the base width of the peak.
N = (VR/ov)2 (A.4)
Vb = 4 cy (A.5)
VR = VM (1 + k) (A.6)
The result is Vp = 4VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (A.7)
Substitution of eq A.7 into eq A.3 yields the desired expression
Vinj = C3/4(y2 + 2y]1/2 4VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (A.8)
If y is re-designated to be the maximum tolerable loss in resolution,
then eq A.8 becomes, upon rearrangement,
Vinj,max = 2(3)1/2 (y2 + 2y)1/2 VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (A.9)
which is the desired expression.
95

REFERENCES
1. L.S. Ettre. "Evolution of Liquid Chromatography: A Historical
Overview" in High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Advances and
Perspectives, Vol. 1. C. Horvath, Ed. Academic Press, New York,
1960, pp. 2-74.
2. H.A. Laitinen and G.W. Ewing. A History of Analytical Chemistry,
The Maple Press Company, York, Pa., 1977, pp. 296-321.
3. J.A. Perry. Introduction to Analytical Gas Chromatography:
History, Principles, and Practice, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1981.
4. L.S. Ettre. Basic Relationships of Gas Chromatography, Perkin-
Elmer, Norwalk, Conn., 1979.
5. L.R. Snyder and J.J. Kirkland. Introduction to Modern Liquid
Chromatography, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York, 1979.
6. E. Grushka, N.M. Myers, P.D. Schetler, and J.C. Giddings.
Computer Characterization of Chromatographic Peaks by Plate Height
and Higher Central Moments. Anal. Chem., 41: 889-892 (1969).
7. 0. Grubner. Interpretation of Asymmetric Curves in Linear
Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 43: 1934-1937 (1971).
8. L.A. Currie. Limits for Qualitative Detection and Quantitative
Determination: Application to Radiochemistry. Anal. Chem., 40:
586-593 (1968).
9. H. Kaiser. Guiding Concepts in Trace Analysis. Pure Appl. Chem.,
34: 35-61 (1973).
10. G.L. Long and J.D. Winefordner. Limit of Detection: A Closer Look
at the IUPAC Definition. Anal. Chem. 55: 712A-724A (1983).
11. J.C. Sternberg. "Extracolumn Contributions to Chromatographic
Band Broadening" in Advances in Chromatography, Vol. 2. J.C.
Giddings and R.A. Keller, Eds. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1966, pp.
205-270.
96

97
12. P.T. Kissinger, L.J. Felice, D.J. Miner, C.R. Reddy, and R.E.
Shoup. "Detectors for Trace Organic Analysis by Liquid
Chromatography: Principles and Applications" in Contemporary
Topics in Analytical and Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 2. D.M.
Hercules, G.M. Hieftje, L.R. Snyder, and M.A. Evenson, Eds.
Plenum Press, New York, 1978, pp. 67-74, 159-175.
13. B.L. Karger, J.N. LePage, and N. Tanaka. "Secondary Chemical
Equilibria" in High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Advances
and Perspectives, Vol. 1. C. Horvath, Ed. Academic Press, New
York, 19&0, pp. 119-121.
14. L.J* Schmauch. Response Time and Flow Sensitivity for Gas
Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 31: 225-230 (1959).
15. H.W. Johnson, Jr. and F.H. Stross. Gas Liquid Chromatography:
Determination of Column Efficiency. Anal. Chem., 31: 357-364
(1959).
16. J.C. Giddings. Kinetic Origin of Tailing In Chromatography.
Anal. Chem., 35: 1999-2002 (1963).
17. R.J.E. Esser. Effect of Detector Volume on Recorded Shape of
Chromatographic Peaks Obtained by Spectrophotometric Detection.
Z. Anal. Chem., 236: 59-64 (1966).
18. H.M. Gladney, B.F. Dowden, and J.D. Swalen. Computer-Assisted
Gas-Liquid Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 41: 883-888 (1969).
19. I.G. McWilliam and H.C. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion: I.
Relaxation Time Effects. Anal. Chem., 41: 1755-1762 (1969).
20. I.G. McWilliam and H.G. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion: II.
Effect of Recorder Response Time. Anal. Chem., 41: 1762-1770
(1969).
21. V. Maynard and E. Grushka. Effect of Dead Volume on Efficiency of
a Gas Chromatographic System. Anal. Chem., 44: 1427-1434 (1972).
22. R.E. Pauls and L.B. Rogers. Band Broadening Studies Using
Parameters for an Exponentially Modified Gaussian. Anal. Chem.,
49: 625-628 (1977).
23. J.J. Kirkland, W.W. Yau, H.J. Stoklosa, and C.H. Dilks, Jr.
Sampling and Extracolumn Effects in High Performance Liquid
Chromatography; Influence of Peak Skew on Plate Count
Calculations. J. Chromatogr. Sci., 15: 303-316 (1977).
24. S.N. Chesler and S.P. Cram. Effect of Peak Sensing and Random
Noise on the Precision and Accuracy of Statistical Moment Analyses
from Digital Chromatographic Data. Anal. Chem., 43: 1922-1933
(1971).

98
25.
26.
27.
2.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Vi.W. Yau. Characterizing Skewed Chromatographic Band Broadening.
Anal. Chem., 49: 395-398 (1977).
R.E. Pauls and L.B. Rogers. Comparison of Methods for Calculating
Retention and Separation of Chromatographic Peaks. Sep. Sci. and
Tech., 12: 395-413 (1977).
E. Grushka. Characterization of Exponentially Modified Peaks in
Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 44: 1733-1738 (1972).
S.M. Roberts, D.H. Wilkinson, and L.R. Walker. Practical Least
Squares Approximation of Chromatograms. Anal. Chem., 42: 886-893
(1970).
A.H. Anderson, T.C. Gibb, and A.B. Littlewood. Computer Resolution
of Unresolved Convolved Gas-Chromatographic Peaks. J. Chromatogr.
Sci., 8: 640-646 (1970).
I.G. McWilliam and H.C. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion III.
Analysis of Overlapping Curves. Anal. Chem., 43: 883-889 (1971).
W.E. Barber and P.W. Carr. Graphical Method for Obtaining
Retention Time and Number of Theoretical Plates from Tailed
Chromatographic Peaks. Anal. Chem., 53: 1939-1942 (1981).
P.W. Carr, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, personal
communication, supplementary material from reference 31.
M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, Eds. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions, Applied Mathematics Series No. 55. National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, D.C. 1964, p. 932.
D.G. Peters, J.M. Hayes, and G.M. Hieftje. Chemical Separations
and Measurements, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1974, p. 18.
R.S. Burington. Handbook of Mathematical Tables and Formulas, 5th
Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973, pp. 424-427.
B.L. Karger, M. Martin, and G. Guichon. Role of Column Parameters
and Injection Volume on Detection Limits In Liquid Chromatography.
Anal. Chem., 46: 1640-1647 (1974).
N.H.C. Cooke, B.G. Archer, K. Olsen, and A. Berick. Comparison of
Three- and Five-Micrometer Columns Packings for Reversed-Phase
Liquid Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 52: 2277-2283 (1982).
General Gas Chromatography Procedures. ASTM E 260-73, American
Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.; originally
published 1965; latest revision 1973.
Gas Chromatography Terms and Relationships. ASTM E 355-77,
American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.;
originally published 1968; latest revision 1977.

99
40. Liquid Chromatography Terms and Relationships. ASTM E 682-79,
American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 1979.
41. Recommendations on Nomenclature for Chromatography. International
Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Pure Appl. Chem., 37: 445-462
(1974).
42. L.S. Ettre. The Nomenclature of Chromatography: I. Gas
Chromatography. J. Chromatogr., 165: 235-256 (1979).
43. L.S. Ettre. The Nomenclature of Chromatography: II. Liquid
Chromatography. J. Chromatogr., 220: 29-63 (1981).
44. Nomenclature, Symbols, Units and Their Usage in Spectrochemical
AnalysisII. Data Interpretation, International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry. Spectrochimica Acta, 33B: 241-245 (1978);
rules approved 1975.
45. Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in
Environmental Chemistry. Anal. Chem., 52: 2241-2249 (1978).
46. H. Kaiser. Quantitation In Elemental Analysis, Part II. Anal.
Chem., 42: 26A-59A (1979).

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Joe Preston Foley was born in Lexington, Kentucky on October 23,
195b. He grew up on a livestock and tobacco farm outside Versailles,
Kentucky, and attended the Woodford County public schools. His early
adolescent interests included camping, sandlot football and basketball,
comic books, fireworks, model rockets, and space exploration. He added
running to his list of hoboies one day after he woke his sister (who had
fallen asleep while sunbathing) with a firecracker.
While attending junior high school, Joe was elected President of
the student council and Governor of the statewide Junior Kentucky Youth
Assembly. As he entered Woodford County High School, his extra
curricular interests shifted to chess and varsity tennis. In June of
1974, he graduated with highest distinction (co-Valedictorian).
During the next four years Joe attended Centre College of Kentucky,
where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He received chemistry awards
sponsored by Centre as a freshman, sophomore, and senior. During the
summer of 1977 he worked as a student intern for the Center for
Technology Assessment and Policy Studies (CTAPS) at Rose-Hulman
Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Indiana. In June of 1978, he
graduated with highest distinction (co-Valedictorian) and received a
Bachelor of Science in chemistry and chemical physics.
In the summer of 1978 Joe again worked for the Center for Technology
Assessment and. Policy Studies. In the fall he returned to Centre
100

101
College, his alma mater, for a nine-month appointment as a physical
science laboratory instructor.
Joe began his graduate study in chemistry at the University of
Florida in June of 1979. In May of 1983 he was one of eleven graduate
students selected nationally for an American Chemical Society Division
of Analytical Chemistry Fellowship. Later in 1983 he completed the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in analytical
chemistry and accepted a National Research Council Postdoctoral Research
Associateship at the National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg,
Maryland.



I . I III I I 1 1 1 1
I 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
B/A
M4
^3 Xs
r, r/crG
RPL
2.5
2.8
LO
CO


72
from one set of chromatographic conditions to another. Thus they are
useful to the analyst interested in lowering the detection limits via
improvements in the chromatographic (rather than the detection) aspects
of the trace analysis. It should be noted, however, that the detection
limits cannot be lowered infinitely by such improvements. Eventually
the analysis will be optimized to the point where further improvements
in the chromatographic aspects will necessitate a reduction in sample
volume which offsets the chromatographic improvements (36). Of course,
in situations where very little sample is available, this reduction in
sample size while maintaining a constant detection limit will be
helpful.
Second, eqs 4.20a-4.20c can be used to compare detection limits
obtained under different chromatographic conditions (bandwidths).
Consider two such detection limits obtained using different
concentration sensitive detectors. These detection limits can be
compared only after one of the two detection limits is converted from
its present value obtained under a certain chromatographic bandwidth
(set of conditions) to a value corresponding to the bandwidth of the
other LOD, or after both LODs are converted to values corresponding to a
third bandwidth. Note that the latter would require an additional
conversion.
Whichever way is chosen, it should be recognized that the final
bandwidth (set of chromatographic conditions) chosen in the LOD
conversion procedure serves as a reference state and that the initial
bandwidth(s) is(are) by definition experimental states. Thus from
,exp
eq 4.20a we may write
qL,ref
[aV,ref/aV,exp] qL
(4.21)


33
Except for eqs 11b, 13b, and 14b which had biases of +0.976%,
+0.820%, and +1.111%, respectively, the bias for every equation given in
Tables 3-2, 3-3 and 3*4 was less than 0.6%.
Precision Summary. For the equations in Table 3.2, the estimated
relative standard (RSD) limits obtained via propagation of error theory
for Ngys M2, Nmax, and RSE were all less than or equal to 4.5%.
R8D limits for tQ and M-j were + 0.2%.
The precision of the EMG equations in Table 3.2, the width-based
Gaussian equations, and the calibration curve method of Barber and Carr
(31) is compared for Nsys, M2, and Cq in Table 3.5. The results shown
for the Gaussian equations are valid for 50%, 30%, and 10% width
measurements because RSD(Wq = RSD(Wq 2) = RSD(Wq ^). The slightly
greater imprecision observed for the EMG equations is due to uncertainty
in the B/A measurement not required for the Gaussian equations. The
somewhat larger %RSDs for the method of Barber and Carr are probably due
to interpolation uncertainties (from the calibration curves) unique to
this method.
The precision of the remaining CFOMs in Table 3.2 was found to be
highly dependent on the peak shape. Rather than reporting RSD limits,
the RSDs for several CFOMs or groups of CFOMs have been plotted vs B/A
in Figure 3-1
Other CFOM Equations
Listed in Tables 3-3 and 3*4 are smaller sets of CFOM equations
developed only for use in determining if a real chromatographic peak is
well-modeled by an EMG peak and should not be used to routinely
calculate any CFOM (including N,re,) since they are usually less
accurate, less precise, and more complex than the analogous equations in


20
Table 2.4. Maximum Errors in the Universal
EMG Data and Selected Component Parameters
Parameter3,
Maximum Error
dtmin
tA tB
dtmin
A = tR-t^, B = tR-t
B UR
3/2 dtrain
Wa/0G = (tB_tA)/G
dt /a,
min G
(tR-tG)/aiG
dt .
min G
A, B, tR, t^, and tR defined in Figure 1.1
'B
or, tP, and dtm. described in text.
G1 G' mm


5
the eventual acceptance of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG), a
function obtained via the convolution of a Gaussian function and an
exponential decay function which provides an asymmetric peak profile.
The development, characterization, and theoretical and experimental
justification of this model have been thoroughly reviewed (21,22,26,27).
Previous chromatographic studies (11,12,14,15,17-23,25-31) involving the
EMG function, summarized in Table 1.2, demonstrate the utility of this
skewed peak model.
Adoption of the EMG peak-shape model has improved the estimation of
the CFOMs. A new algorithm for the computer-based peak moment analysis
has been derived (25) and tested (22) which is less sensitive to
baseline noise and the uncertainty of peak start/stop assignments. More
recently, Barber and Carr described a manual method for CFOM
quantitation which requires the graphically measurable retention time
tfl, peak width W empirical asymmetry factor B/A, and successive
interpolations from three large-scale universal calibration curves
(31,32).
The primary objective of this part of the present study is the
development, using the EMG model, of accurate equations for CFOM
calculation dependent solely on tR, WQ -¡, and B/A. The need for
computerized data acquisition is thus circumvented, and, in addition,
CFOM calculation via these equations is expected to be faster and more
precise than the other accurate manual method since no graphical
interpolation is required.
The previously reported methods for evaluating the EMG function
(14,18,19,27) and obtaining chromatographic peak data (19,26,31) were
too inaccurate or too unwieldy to use in the present study, which


64
LOD = 3[sb2 + Sj_2 + (i/S)2ss2]1/2/S (4.5b)
where S, i, Sg, and s^ are the analytical sensitivity (slope),
intercept, and their respective standard deviations of the calibration
curve obtained via linear regression; and sB is the standard deviation,
calculated from 20 or more measurements of the blank signal.
The factor of 3 in the numerator of the right hand expressions of
eqs 4.5a and 4.5b gives a practical confidence level of 90$ to 99.7$,
depending on the probability distribution of the blank signal and the
accuracy of Sg (10,44,46). Though smaller or larger factors could be
used instead of 3, the resulting confidence levels would be too low or
too high for practical use in most cases. Both the original proponents
of these models (10,44) and others (46) strongly recommend the use of
the factor 3. This author concurs.
Both models are proposed for adoption because it seems preferable
to let the chromatography community judge their respective merits.
Indeed, strong arguments can be made for each. The IPAC model, on the
one hand, is computationally simpler and has already been employed,
though infrequently, in the chromatographic literature. On the other
hand, the error propagation model is not really all that complicated;
many pocket calculators with linear regression capability can be easily
programmed for the error propagation model. Furthermore, the error
propagation LOD model takes uncertainties of the slope and intercept of
the calibration curve into account, resulting in a more realistic
numerical estimate.
Interpretation. The IUPAC and error propagation LOD models were
developed originally for spectroscopic trace analysis. Nearly all the


26
Table 3.1. Chromatographic Figures of Merit Based on
the Exponentially Modified Gaussian (EMG) Model
Fundamental
'G*
T /an
Derived
Nsys = t//(aG2 t2)
max =
BSE = (Sys/Nmax> W2 = g2/m2
RPL = [(nax Nsys)/max] (tG/tR)2 = 1-BSE
= T/M.
M1 = tG + T
^2 = aG^ +
M^ = 2
Mi,
+ 6ar2 t2 + 9 t
Ys = M3/M2
3/2
Ye = Mn/M2 -
3


69
Problems with estimating the maximum injection volume. Experimen
tally, ^inj max can 136 determined by increasing Vj_nj until column over
loading or some other adverse pnenomenon is observed. This operational
definition of V_ is unsatisfactory, however, because the injection
.LilJ j) uldX
volume at which these events occur is too dependent on the experimental
conditions, e.g., the sample matrix, the percent loading of the column.
Alternatively, numerous theoretical expressions are available for
the estimation of max Though many are overly specific, a few are
completely general. Perhaps the best is one which relates V. to
inj j iuSX
the maximum tolerable degradation in resolution (5, p. 289). Our
extension of this expression is reported below as eq 4.13, and is
derived in Appendix C.
Vinj,max = 2^3)1/2 (y2 + 2y)1/2 VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (4.13a)
where y = the maximum tolerable loss in resolution due to a finite
injection volume.
Another expression based on the same criterion (maximum tolerable
loss in resolution) but derived from slightly different assumptions (36)
is shown in eq 4.13b
Vinj ,max = <2K> y VMC1 k)/N,/2 (4.13b)
where K is a parameter characteristic of the method of injection;
practical values of K range from 2 to 3.5 (ideal plug injection).
Comparison of eqs 4.13a and 4.13b reveals one of the problems with
theoretical estimates of vj_nj max: due to their extreme dependency on
the criterion selected and/or the assumptions of the derivation,
theoretical estimates of V are extremely inconsistent.
JLil J 9 illd-A.


Figure 3.3. Relative error in the Gaussian standard deviation, plate count, and
second central moment for Gaussian equations based on t^, Wq ^
measurements for ideal and slightly skewed peaks.


3
characterization. The graphical chromatographic parameters are
illustrated in figure 1.1.
These CFOMs have been estimated either manually using graphical
measurements made directly from the chromatogram or by a computer
following data acquisition. Both methods have advantages and
disadvantages.
Manual methods were used exclusively at first and are employed
quite extensively today. For arbitrary peak shapes, they are accurate
for only five CFOMs: tp, B/A, hp, Wb, and W&. If a Gaussian peak shape
is assumed, however, then M^ = tR, and Mp is only a function of W'b, Wa,
or Mq and i\i may subsequently be calculated. Except for higher
even central moments, the remaining CFOMs are zero for Gaussian peaks.
For real chromatographic peaks, it is almost always a mistake to
assume a Gaussian peak shape. Experimentally these ideal, symmetric
peaks are rarely, if ever, observed due to various intracolumn and
extracolumn sources of asymmetry (5,11-23). Kirkland et al. have shown
that the plate count can be overestimated by as much or more than 100$
if any of the three most common Gaussian-based equations are
employed (23).
Computer estimation methods are more accurate than common manual
methods for a given CFOM but are not available to every chromatographer.
The general approach taken has been one of peak statistical moment
analysis (6,11,22-24). Via relatively simple algorithms all the CFOMs
may be determined quite accurately, though the precision of the second
and higher central moments is seriously affected by baseline noise (25).
The failure of the Gaussian function as a peak shape model for real
chromatographic peaks led to the search for a more accurate model and


81
standardized LODs, thereby adjusting for differences in the
experimental chromatographic conditions (bandwidths, or states).
As seen in Table 4.6, the discrepancy between the LODs is reduced
significantly with every successive stage. It should be noted that the
largest source of discrepancy is due to differences in the experimental
chromatographic conditions (bandwidths). This demonstrates the need for
a standardized chromatographic limit of detection. Finally, the LODs in
the bottom row of Table 4.6 are identical, indicating that the
reconciliation has been completely successful.
Conclusion
Meaningful chromatographic detection limits can be obtained only if
careful attention is paid to the application of the principles which
have been discussed:
1. The limit of detection (LOD) should not be confused with the
(analytical) sensitivity (S), the minimum detectability (MD), or the
detector sensitivity (S^).
2. The experimentally observed LODs should be calculated using the IUPAC
and/or the error propagation model(s). The calibration curve should be
constructed from a plot of signal versus amount (not concentration!) of
analyte injected, thus insuring that the resulting LODs will be in units
of amount (not concentration!).
3. If obtained under non-standard conditions, the detection limits can
be standardized using the equations in Table 4.5. Standardized
chromatographic LODs are superior to their conventional (non-
standardized) counterparts for several reasons, in particular because
they permit the (valid) comparison of trace analysis chromatographic
systems in different areas (LC, PGC, and OTGC) and/or with different
types of detectors (mass and concentration sensitive).


13
(where erf is the error function) in order to take advantage of error
function subroutines resident in the computers used (19,27). Others
used eq 2.3, but approximated the error function by interpolation from a
set of tabulated areas (14,18). For small z values (region a, above),
the error function techniques were sufficiently inaccurate to warrant
the use of other methods instead. In nearly every instance some type of
asymptotic series was employed (14,19,27). In the lone exception, a
Gaussian function was substituted for the EMG function for any part of
the peak profile where very small z values were encountered (18).
This work. The approach taken in this study is to transform the
integral in eq 2.1 via change of variable [x = y/(2)172] to
The EMG function can now be written as
(2.4)
The integral in eq 2.4 can be approximated by a polynomial approximation
ljj(z<0) = NF(z) P(q) and l^(z>.0) = 1- l^(z<0), wher
NF(z) = exp(-z2/2)/(2Tr)172, P(q) = b^q + b2q2 + b^q^ + b^q^ + b^q^
q = (1 + pz)-' and p,b^,...,b- are constants given in Table 2.2 (33).
where
Comparison. The values obtained for 1^ are compared to the true
values (34,35) in Table 2.3 from z=-10toz>3.9. In addition, since
I4 = 11/(tt ) ^72
(2.5)
they can be compared to values obtained for I. via an asymptotic


83
And finally, the relative error (fifi) approach used so successfully
in the derivation of the equations in Chapter 3 is completely general
and should be considered by other scientists for any semi-empirical
modeling in their fields.


74
The logical compromise which is proposed is a fixed reference state
(bandwidth) to be used exclusively for each of the three chromatographic
areas (LC, PGC, and OTGC) in each of the two detector categories
[concentration sensitive (eq 4.20) or mass sensitive (eq 4.21)], giving
a total of six fixed references states. Furthermore, it is proposed
that the LODs resulting from the conversion to these fixed reference
states be referred to as standardized chromatographic LODs. To
emphasize this, eqs 4.21 and 4.22 may be rewritten as
qL,std =
taV,ref/aV,expJ
qL ,exp
(4.
.23)
qL,std =
tat,ref/at,expJ
qL,exp
(4,
.24)
respectively, where the standardized LODs are indicated by the subscript
"std".
Advantages of the chromatographic reference state concept and the
resulting standardized chromatographic LODs If the values for the
reference states are chosen judiciously, the resulting standardized LODs
will be superior to experimental (hereafter termed conventional) LODs in
several ways:
First, standardized LODs generally represent a more realistic
measure of the trace analysis capabilities of a given chromatographic
system, thus permitting an analyst to decide whether or not a particular
application reported in the literature will be feasible with his or her
system. Conventional LODs, on the other hand, may be very misleading.
As evidenced in the literature, many trace analyses have been performed
using chromatographic systems which have only been partially optimized,
if at all. As a result, unusually pessimistic (very high) LODs are
obtained. In contrast, some overly optimistic (very low) LODs have been


36
Table 3.5. Precision3, Comparison of Three Graphical Methods for
Estimating Ngys, M2, and
method
Gaussian eqs 2.0
empirical eqs,
Table III, 2.5
this work
calibration curve
method, reported 5
previously (31)
M
2
2.0
2.4
3
G
1.0
2.0
3
3.
Reported as percent relative standard deviation ($RSD).
Precision of equations estimated via error propagation, using
data of Table 3*6.


99
40. Liquid Chromatography Terms and Relationships. ASTM E 682-79,
American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 1979.
41. Recommendations on Nomenclature for Chromatography. International
Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Pure Appl. Chem., 37: 445-462
(1974).
42. L.S. Ettre. The Nomenclature of Chromatography: I. Gas
Chromatography. J. Chromatogr., 165: 235-256 (1979).
43. L.S. Ettre. The Nomenclature of Chromatography: II. Liquid
Chromatography. J. Chromatogr., 220: 29-63 (1981).
44. Nomenclature, Symbols, Units and Their Usage in Spectrochemical
AnalysisII. Data Interpretation, International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry. Spectrochimica Acta, 33B: 241-245 (1978);
rules approved 1975.
45. Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in
Environmental Chemistry. Anal. Chem., 52: 2241-2249 (1978).
46. H. Kaiser. Quantitation In Elemental Analysis, Part II. Anal.
Chem., 42: 26A-59A (1979).


70
Another problem with these and other general expressions is that
^inj,max is highly dependent on the value of some arbitrary parameter,
y in this example (eqs 4.13a and 4.13'd). If y = 0.04 (4% loss in
resolution), eq 4.13a becomes
V-
inj,max
vMd
k)/N
1/2
(4.14)
If y were chosen to be 0.01 or 0.10, then Vinj max would be equal to
approximately half or one and one-half times the value predicted by
eq 4.14. Since universal agreement on the value of y or some other
parameter is unlikely, the theoretical methods for estimating V. .
will continue to be imprecise.
Summary. For all the reasons discussed above, chromatographic LODs
should always be reported in units of amount, not concentration.
Converting to Chromatographic Reference Conditions
As seen from eqs 4.3 and 4.4, the LOD depends not only on the
detector characteristics (MD) but also on three chromatographic
parameters [k, N, and (or t^)] which characterize the column and the
solute. In this section a method is proposed for taking the effects of
these parameters into account, thereby solving the final problem
associated with the chromatographic LOD (see Table 4.1). Gaussian
elution profiles are assumed, though slight to moderate deviations can
be tolerated.
For a concentration sensitive detector, the relationship between
the LOD and the chromatographic parameters is given by
qL = d VM(Uk)/N1/z (4.15)
where terms of eq 4.3 [(2ir) b, MD] have been incorporated into a


73
where the subscripts "ref" and "exp" refer to reference and
experimental, respectively. Similar equations resulting from the
incorporation of this notation into eqs 4.20b and 4.20c are easily
inferred.
The above derivation can be repeated in an analogous fashion for
the case of mass sensitive detectors. The result is
qL,ref = [ot,ref/at,exp] qL,exp (4.22)
where is the bandwidth of the peak in time units.
Given eqs 4.21 and 4.22, the analyst now has a method for comparing
detection limits obtained under different chromatographic conditions
(states). Given two or more LODs measured under different
chromatographic states, the analyst merely converts all of them to
values corresponding to a single, arbitrary, reference state.
Though the choice of the reference state is arbitrary, the
selection of the reference state is nevertheless important. For
example, it would be counterproductive for an analyst to employ a
different chromatographic reference state each time a new group of
experimental LODs (measured under different experimental states) were to
be compared, since LODs in separate groups could not be compared if this
was done. For similar reasons, it would also be counterproductive if
each analyst or group of analysts used different reference states.
On the other hand, the reference states by definition must be
different for concentration sensitive and mass sensitive chromatographic
systems. And in addition, typical chromatographic states (bandwidths)
vary considerably in liquid chromatography (LC), packed column gas
chromatography (PGC), and open tubular gas chromatography (OTGC).


85
100 REM EMG-U EVALUATES THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG)
FUNCTION
110 REM ALSO DETERMINES TR, HP, TA, TB, B/A, W/SIG, AND (TR-TG)/SIG
120 B$ = ADD LINE":C$ = 3150 PRINT T,HEMG":D$ = "TO HELP DEBUG."
130 ZERO = 0: PT5 = ,5:WUN = 1:TWO = 2:RTTWOPI = SQR (TWO *
3- 141592654):TEN = 10:K4 = 10000:K5 = 100000: REM COMMON NUMERICAL
CONSTANTS
140 P = .2316419:31 = .31938153:B2 = .356563782:B3 = 1.781477937:B4
= 1.821255978:B5 = 1.330274429: REM CONSTANTS FOR 14 POLYNOMIAL
APPROX.
150 A = 1:TG = 100:SIG = 5: REM EMG PRE-EXPONENTIAL CONSTANTS
200 INPUT "ALPHA = (.005 < ALPHA < 1) ? ";ALPHA
220 PRINT "INITIAL,FINAL VALUES OF TAU/SIGMA (T/S)": INPUT "(0.1 <=
T/S <= 4.25) ? ";R1,R2
240 INPUT "TAU/SIGMA INCREMENT ? ";RSIZE
260 INPUT "DT MIN = ? (.001,.01,.1,1 S) ";TLR
300 REM BEGIN DISK STORAGE OF EMG DATA (OPTIONAL)
400 FOR R = R1 TO R2 STEP RSIZE
440 T = R: GOSUB 3300:R = T:S = WUN / R
480 GOSUB 1000: REM GO TO MAIN EMG DATA ROUTINE
500 BA = (TB TR) / (TR XTA):WS1G = (TB XTA) / SIG:RR = (TR TG)
/ SIG
540 BA = INT (BA K4 + PT5) / INT (K4 + PT5):T = RR: GOSUB 3300:RR
= T
600 PRINT R,BA: PRINT WSIG,RR: PRINT
700 TR = ZERO:HP = ZERO:XTA = ZERO:TB = ZERO
720 T1 = ZER0.-T2 = ZERO: DT = ZERO: HTEMP = ZERO
800 NEXT R
830 REM END OPTIONAL DISK STORAGE OF EMG DATA
850 END : REM PROGRAM HAS RUN TO COMPLETION
1000 T = TG: GOSUB 3000:HTEMP = HEMG:DT = WUN
1020 T = T + DT: GOSUB 3000
1040 IF HEMG < HTEMP THEN GOSUB 3300: GOSUB 3350: GOTO 1100
1060 HTEMP = HEMG: GOTO 1020
1080 GOSUB 3350
1100 IF DT < = TLR THEN 1160
1120 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 1620
1140 GOTO 1100
1160 TR = T2 DT:T = TR: GOSUB 3000:HP = HEMG:HLOOK = HP ALPHA
1200 T = INT (TR + WUN + PT5)
1220 T = T WUN: GOSUB 3000
1240 IF HEMG > HLOOK THEN 1220
1260 DT = WUN: GOSUB 3400
1280 IF DT < = TLR THEN 1340
1300 GOSUB 3450: GOSUB 1830
1320 GOTO 1280
1340 GOSUB 3500:XTA = T: GOSUB 3000


APPENDIX CDERIVATION OF Vinj>max
We begin with a previously derived expression (5, p. 289) which
relates the peak volume observed for a finite size sample, Vw, to the
volume of injected sample, Vbnj, and to the peak volume observed for a
very small sample, Vp
v2 = Vp2 +4/3(VinJ)2 u.1)
Let Vw = (y + 1)Vp (A.2)
where y = loss in resolution due to a finite injection volume.
Substituting eq A.2 into eq A.1 and solving for Vinj yields
Vinj = C3/4(y2 + 2y)]1/2 Vp (A.3)
We now express V in terms of N, k, and using eqs A.4-A.6, assuming
Vp = vb* volume corresponding to the base width of the peak.
N = (VR/ov)2 (A.4)
Vb = 4 cy (A.5)
VR = VM (1 + k) (A.6)
The result is Vp = 4VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (A.7)
Substitution of eq A.7 into eq A.3 yields the desired expression
Vinj = C3/4(y2 + 2y]1/2 4VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (A.8)
If y is re-designated to be the maximum tolerable loss in resolution,
then eq A.8 becomes, upon rearrangement,
Vinj,max = 2(3)1/2 (y2 + 2y)1/2 VM(1 + k)/N1/2 (A.9)
which is the desired expression.
95


41
Assuming negligible covariances, RSD(N r_) is given by
sy o
RSD(Nsys) = {4[RSD(tR)]2 + 4[RSD(Wa)]2 +
1 2
RSD[(B/A)a]2 [(B/A)a/((B/A)a + C2)]2}172 (3.10)
3 4
Even when terms 1-3 in eq 3.10 are constant, RSD(N_,,_) will vary
somewhat with (B/A) because of term 4. Clearly this variation will be
a.
greatest
for -(B/A)a < C2
< 0. Additionally, as
C2 + -(B/A)
a
BSD(Nsys)
-* 00. For C2 = 0,
RSD(N_t._) is essentially
independent
of
(B/A)a.
Finally, for C2 >
0, a negligible to slight
variation
of
SSD(Nsys)
with (B/A) may be
3.
observed, depending on the
magnitude
of
terms 1 and 2 relative to the product of terms 3 and 4. Except for eqs
1 and 2(a,b) in Table 3-4, the RSD limits for Nsys, M2, crG, tG, Nmax
RSE, and calculated via equations in Tables 3.2, 3*3, and 3.4 varied
by less than 0.5$ for 1.00 <. B/A £ 2.76.
The remaining CFOMs (x, x/o^, RPL, M^, comprise a second
group whose RSDs are moderate to strong functions of peak shape as
Figure 3.1 shows. In every instance the imprecision is largest for the
least asymmetric peaks and smallest for the most highly skewed peaks.
Analysis of the error propagation equations show that one or more terms
within the equations get very large as the peak shapes become symmetric.
Whv Measure at 10% Peak Height?
For reasons listed below, the recommended CF0M equations in
Table 3-2 are based on (in addition to tR) the measurement of W and B/A
at 10$ peak height rather than at other peak height fractions such as
50$, 30$, or 5$:


APPENDIX ADISCUSSION AND LISTING OF THE BASIC PROGRAM, EMG-U
EMG-, the BASIC program which evaluates the EMG function and
obtains the universal data, is listed below. In addition to the
documentation supplied within the program itself and the flowcharts
given in Fig 2.1, the following should be noted:
1. By letting S = ct^/t and Y = (tt^)/CTq, eq 2.4 can be written as
hEMG(t) = £AS(2tr)1/2] exp(S2/2 SY) /exp(-y2/2)dy/(2^)1/2 (A.1)
J co
where z = Y S. (A.2)
2. To the extent allowed by BASIC, the symbolism used in EMG-U is
consistent with that in eqs A.1 and A.2 and elsewhere in the text.
Greek symbols were spelled out partially or entirely.
3. EMG-U was developed on an Apple II Plus computer and optimized for
0.1 <. x/aG <. 4 using tQ = 100, = 5, 0.001 <. dtmin <_ 1, and 0.001 <. a
< 1. Minor modifications may be required for optimum performance if
other computers or other values for the parameters are used.
4. EMG-U was designed to minimize execution time; major reductions are
not likely to be achieved unless a compiler is used.
5. Tne EMG evaluation subroutine (lines 2990-3160) may be used
independently of the other routines in EMG-U.
84


APPENDIX BUNIVERSAL EMG DATA AT a = 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, 0.50
a = 0.05
x/aG
(B/A)0.05
W0.05/OG
0.3
1.0331
5.1085
0.2792
0.35
1.0490
5.1612
0.3194
0.4
1.0679
5.2620
0.3576
0.45
1.0896
5.3506
0.3938
0.5
1.1141
5.4466
0.4280
0.55
1.1411
5.5494
0.4608
0.6
1.1701
5.6582
0.4920
0.65
1.2009
5.7722
0.5218
0.7
1.2337
5.8912
0.5502
0.75
1.2679
6.0146
0.5774
0.6
1.3037
6.1416
0.6034
0.65
1.3404
6.2722
0.6284
0.9
1.3783
6.4056
0.6522
0.95
1.4170
6.5414
0.6752
1.0
1.4563
6.6796
0.6974
1.05
1.4964
6.8196
0.7186
1.1
1.5366
6.9610
0.7392
1.15
1.5776
7.1040
0.7590
1.2
1.6189
7.2482
0.7782
1.25
1.6605
7.3934
0.7966
1.3
1.7022
7.5392
0.8146
1.35
1.7441
7.6862
0.8320
1.4
1.7662
7.8336
0.8486
1.45
1.8285
7.9816
0.8650
1.5
1.8706
8.1302
0.8810
1.55
1.9132
8.2792
0.8964
1.6
1.9555
8.4286
0.9114
1.65
1.9982
8.5784
0.9258
1.7
2.0407
6.7286
0.9400
1.75
2.0833
8.8788
0.9538
1.8
2.1259
9.0296
0.9672
1.65
2.1685
9.1804
0.9804
1.9
2.2111
9.3314
0.9932
1.95
2.2535
9.4826
1.0058
2.0
2.2961
9.6336
1.0180
87


94
VaG
(fi/A)0.5
W0.5/aG
(tp-tjO/a,
2.05
1.4222
3.6216
1.0298
2.1
1.4364
3.6570
1.0414
2.15
1.4505
3.6924
1.0528
2.2
1.4646
3.7280
1.0640
2.25
1.4789
3.7634
1.0750
2.3
1.4933
3.7988
1.0856
2.35
1.5078
3.8344
1.0960
2.4
1.5220
3.8702
1.1064
2.45
1.5366
3.9058
1.1164
2.5
1.5511
3.9414
1.1262
2.55
1.5656
3.9772
1.1360
2.6
1.5804
4.0130
1.1454
2.65
1.5953
4.0486
1.1546
2.7
1.6098
4.0844
1.1638
2.75
1.6245
4.1204
1.1728
2.6
1.6393
4.1564
1.1816
2.85
1.6543
4.1922
1.1902
2.9
1.6690
4.2282
1.1988
2.95
1.6837
4.2644
1.2072
3-0
1.6988
4.3002
1.2154


RPL
Figure 3.4. Relative system efficiency, RSE, and relative plate loss,
RPL, for ideal and skewed peaks.


To Mom and
and
Dad, for their love, support, and
to my sister Barbara, for leading
encouragement;
the way.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my research director,
John G. Dorsey, not only for helping me with various research projects,
but for being a special friendfor always finding the time to listen
and for always doing the "extra things."
Second, I want to express my gratitude to Thomas J. Buckley and
Sharon G. Lias of the National Bureau of Standards for their help and
the use of their facilities in preparing this document.
Finally, I want to thank all the friends I made in Gainesville for
making my graduate education at the University of Florida the happiest
and most satisfying time of my life.
iii


93
a = 0.50
T/0q
(b/A)q.5
W0.5/aG
(tR-tG)/aG
0.3
1.0133
2.4442
0.2792
0.35
1.0195
2.4706
0.3194
0.4
1.0264
2.4986
0.3576
0.45
1.0341
2.5284
0.3938
0.5
1.0425
2.5588
0.4282
0.55
1.0515
2.5902
0.4608
0.6
1.0606
2.6226
0.4920
0.65
1.0705
2.6552
0.5218
0.7
1.0807
2.6882
0.5502
0.75
1.0911
2.7214
0.5774
0.8
1.1018
2.7550
0.6034
0.85
1.1127
2.7888
0.6284
0.9
1.1242
2.8226
0.6522
0.95
1.1354
2.8568
0.6752
1.0
1.1471
2.8908
0.6974
1.05
1.1591
2.9252
0.7186
1. 1
1.1709
2.9594
0.7392
1.15
1.1632
2.9940
0.7590
1.2
1.1954
3.0284
0.7782
1.25
1.2079
3.0628
0.7966
1.3
1.2204
3.0974
0.8146
1.35
1.2331
3.1322
0.8320
1.4
1.2460
3.1668
0.8488
1.45
1.2593
3.2014
0.8650
1.5
1.2720
3.2362
0.8810
1.55
1.2652
3.2710
0.8964
1.6
1.2984
3.3060
0.9114
1.65
1.3120
3.3408
0.9258
1.7
1.3254
3-3756
0.9400
1.75
1.3390
3.4108
0.9538
1.8
1.3527
3.4458
0.9672
1.85
1.3663
3.4806
0.9804
1.9
1.3802
3.5160
0.9932
1.95
1.3940
3.5512
1.0058
2.0
1.4079
3.5864
1.0180


71
single proportionality constant, cl. Alternatively, since VR = (1 + k)
p
and N = (V^/ay) we may write
qL = d Vr/N1/2 (4.16)
or q^ = d Oy (4.17)
where VR is the retention volume (corrected for compressibility in GC)
and Oy is the bandwidth of the chromatographic peak, in volume units.
Equations 4.15-4.17 are equivalent, and any one of them may be used
to derive an expression which accounts for the effects of these
chromatographic parameters on the LOD. For simplicity, we use eq 4.17.
Consider a LOD, qR1, obtained under one set of chromatographic
conditions, i.e., = av1. By analogy with eq 4.17,
qL1 = dov1 (4.18)
Likewise, for a LOD, q^, obtained under a second set of chromatographic
conditions,
qL2 = dav2 (4.19)
Dividing eq 4.19 by eq 4.18 and solving for q^ yields
c¡L2 = L y2/Gyl] Ql1 (4.20a)
which can also be written as
qL2 = ^R2^R13 q^-j (4.20b)
or QL2 = LVM2/VM1] [(k2 + 1)/(k1 + 1)] [N1/N2]1/2 qL1 (4.20c)
Equations 4.20a-4.20c are important for two reasons: First, they
can be used to predict the change in the detection limit when switching


91
a = 0.30
T/aG
(b/A)0.3
W0.3/aG
(tp-tQ)/^
0.3
1.0185
3.2246
0.2792
0.35
1.0268
3.2616
0.3194
0.4
1.0366
3-3014
0.3576
0.45
1.0474
3.3434
0.3938
0.5
1.0592
3.3878
0.4282
0.55
1.0722
3.4336
0.4608
0.6
1.0857
3.4806
0.4920
0.65
1.0998
3.5290
0.5218
0.7
1.1149
3.5784
0.5502
0.75
1.1303
3.6288
0.5774
0.6
1.1463
3.6800
0.6034
0.65
1.1627
3.7316
0.6284
0.9
1.1800
3.7844
0.6522
0.S5
1.1973
3.8374
0.6752
1.0
1.2151
3.8914
0.6974
1.05
1.2334
3.9456
0.7186
1.1
1.2520
4.0004
0.7392
1.15
1.2709
4.0558
0.7590
1.2
1.2900
4.1114
0.7782
1.25
1.3095
4.1678
0.7966
1.3
1.3293
4.2244
0.8146
1.35
1.3493
4.2814
0.8320
1.4
1.3696
4.3388
0.8488
1.45
1.3902
4.3966
0.8650
1.5
1.4108
4.4546
0.8810
1.55
1.4317
4.5132
0.8964
1.6
1.4527
4.5718
0.9114
1.65
1.4742
4.6308
0.9256
1.7
1.4955
4.6900
0.9400
1.75
1.5170
4.7496
0.9538
1.8
1.5387
4.8094
0.9672
1.65
1.5606
4.8692
0.9804
1.9
1.5825
4.9294
0.9932
1.95
1.6043
4.9898
1.0058
2.0
1.6263
5.0504
1.0180


Table 1.1. Common Chromatographic Figures of Merit
parameter
theoretical plates
retention time
empirical asymmetry factor
peak height
peak width at specified height
peak width at base
peak shape function
symbol
N
t.
M
K
1
m
B/A
VI
W,
D
h(t)
general expression
O
(retention time) /variance
peak maximum
peak centroid
peak median
see Figure 1.1
see Figure 1.1
a denotes peak height fraction
tangents drawn from inflection points
zeroth (peak area)
first (peak centroid)
2nd central moment (variance)
nth central moment
peak skew
statistical moments and related quantities
M
J0
CO
I h(t) dt
*s~ oo
/ oo
/ t h(t) dt/M0
/. 00
/ (t M.,)2 h(t) dt/M0
OO
y-* oo
(t M^j )n h(t) dt/M0
no
M3/M23/2
peak excess
3


92
t/og
(B/A)0.3
W0.3/aG
(tf-t)/a(
2.05
1.6486
5.1108
1.0298
2.1
1.6710
5.1716
1.0414
2.15
1.6933
5.2326
1.0528
2.2
1.7155
5.2936
1.0640
2.25
1.7379
5.3548
1.0750
2.3
1.7604
5.4160
1.0850
2.35
1.7829
5.4774
1.0960
2.4
1.8053
5.5388
1.1064
2.45
1.8279
5.6004
1.1164
2.5
1.8507
5.6620
1.1262
2.55
1.8730
5.7236
1.1360
2.6
1.8959
5.7854
1.1454
2.65
1.9186
5.8472
1.1548
2.7
1.9413
5.9090
1.1638
2.75
1.9639
5.9710
1.1728
2.8
1.9865
6.0328
1.1816
2.85
2.0092
6.0948
1.1902
2.9
2.0317
6.1568
1.1988
2.95
2.0544
6.2188
1.2072
3.0
2.0771
6.2810
1.2154


22
4. The proposed search algorithms for determining tg, tA, and tg are
superior to the previous methods because they can be de-bugged more
easily. By having the time and the value of the EMG function printed
every time the EMG function is evaluated, the programmer can literally
watch the computer perform the search. Since the search logic is so
simple, programming errors are easily detected. Upon elimination of the
errors, the print statement may be removed.
Comparison of Universal EMG Data
Table 2.5 shows representative sets of universal EMG data obtained
from this study and from a previous work (32) which utilized the
quadratic least squares method and the interpolation method for the
location of tg and tA (or tg), respectively. The precision is reported
for our data (in terms of maximum errors) and is assumed to be no worse
than + 1 in the least significant digit of the previously reported data.
Several points should be noted:
1. Although this difference is slight or non-existent at high
asymmetries, the previously obtained universal data are somewhat more
precise. This is expected since the algorithms used in locating tg, tA,
and tg are potentially more precise than those developed here.
2. The data sets are in excellent agreement for all three universal EMG
quantities at low asymmetries (t/og <. 0.5). This agreement is
especially significant at t/o^ = 0.1, because it shows that the moderate
errors introduced by the polynomial approximation for Ij in eq 2.4 when
-12 < z < - (see Table 2.3) are not transmitted to the universal EMG
data.
3. Whereas the Wa/cfQ data reported previously are consistent with the
corresponding data of this study over the entire range of T/aQ, the
remaining data sets are discordant for t/ug J> 1.0. Relative to the
current data sets, the previous ones for (tG)/ctq and (B/A) aPPear to
be slightly overestimated and underestimated, respectively. This
discrepancy is due to the use of a least squares fitting method in the
previous measurement of tg which overestimates this quantity for EMG
peaks (26) and other types of skewed peaks. This bias increases from an
insignificant value at low T/aG to an observable one at t/cfg _> 1.0.
4. Despite the differences noted above, the general interlaboratory
agreement is quite good. Though the current data are more accurate,
either set of EMG data can be used with confidence for modeling studies.


igure 3.2. Relative error in plate count of three Gaussian equations (based on
the indicated peak width measurements) and the EMG-based NSyS
equation (Table 3.2, eq 1) for ideal and skewed peaks.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Overview 1
Chromatographic Peak Characterization 1
Limit of Detection 8
2 GENERATION OF THE EXPONENTIALLY MODIFIED GAUSSIAN (EMG)
FUNCTION AND RELATED DATA 9
Introduction 9
EMG Evaluation 9
Background 9
Evaluation of the Integral Term 10
Obtaining Universal EMG Data 16
Background 16
Measurement of the Pertinent Peak Parameters.. 17
Comparison of Universal EMG Data 22
Conclusion 24
3 EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC
FIGURES OF MERIT FOR IDEAL AND SKEWED PEAKS 25
Introduction 25
Derivations 25
Experimental 28
Apparatus 28
Procedure 28
Results 30
Recommended CFOM Equations 30
Other CFOM Equations 33
Discussion 39
Detailed Discussion of Precision 39
Why Measure At 10$ Peak Height? 41
General Aspects 46
Conclusion. 55
iv


30
($RELs) which represent the maximum possible error of the CFOM equations
within the specified B/A range; the mean percent relative error or bias,
%RE = 2%RE/n; the average magnitude of the percent relative error,
2|%RE|/n; and the standard deviation of the percent relative error.
The precision of the empirical, EMG-based CFOM equations and three
Gaussian CFOM equations was calculated via error propagation theory and
is reported as percent relative standard deviation ($RSD). The
required precision estimates of t^, W&, and (B/A) (the graphically
measurable quantities) were obtained using data from a previous
study (32).
Results
Recommended CFOM Equations
Listed in Table 3-2 are the empirical CFOM equations based on tp,
Wq i, and B/A measurements (see Figure 1.1) which we recommend.
Accuracy. Using equation 1 in Table 3.2, the true efficiency of a
chromatographic system, N_, may be estimated to within + 1.5 for both
sys
Gaussian and exponentially tailed peaks within the asymmetry range 1.00
accurate over this asymmetry range.
All CFOMs except RPL, M^, Yg, and Yg can be estimated to within
+. 5% for 1.09 <. B/A <. 2.76, the asymmetry range over which most of the
curve fitting was performed.
All CFOM equations are accurate to within + 5% for 1.19 <. B/A 2.76, and 18 out of 21 are accurate to within 2%.


28
where f(B/A) was approximated by a least squares fit of (tR tG)/nG
vs. B/A.
Since tR, B/A, and WQ ^ are graphically measurable, all the
remaining CFOMs can be calculated once the fundamental parameters aG, x,
and tG have been determined.
Experimental
Apparatus
An Apple II Plus 4K RAM microcomputer was programmed in BASIC for
EMG peak generation. A curve-fitting program available from Interactive
Microware (P.0. Box 771, State College, Pa., 1801) with linear,
geometric, exponential, and polynomial capabilities was used for the
unweighted least squares fitting of various data sets.
Procedure
EMG Peak Generation. Except as otherwise noted, values of A = 1,
tG = 100, and aG = 5 were used in eq 2.4 for EMG peak generation. The
t/q ratio was varied from 0.1 to 3 in 0.05 increments producing data
equivalent to 59 peaks. The times for tR, t^, and tg (see Figure 1.1)
at a = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 for each of the 59 peaks were determined to
within 0.001, using the simple search algorithm described in Chapter 2;
corresponding values of W and B/A were then computed.
Development of the CFQM equations. Textfiles of RE(Nsys, Mg, oQ)
vs. (B/A)0>1j0<3j0_5, (tR tG)/<*G vs. (B/A)01>03>0>5, and RSE vs.
(B/A)q.ijO.5,0.5 were fflsde for 0.1 < x/aG 0*3- The Gaussian relations
aG = W0.t/4.291932 and Mg = (Wq ^/4.291932)^ were used in the Gaussian
approximations for Nsys, aQ) and Mg at a = 0.1. Similar equations were
used for Mg and a at a = 0.3, 0.5. The true values of Nsys, ctq, M2,


Table 4.3. Trace analysis concepts in chromatography
1. limit of detection (LOD) smallest concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected
or detection limit with reasonable certainty for a given analytical procedure
apparent synonyms3 minimum absolute quantity, minimum detectable amount, sensitivity
2. (analytical) sensitivity slope of the calibration curve signal output per unit
(S) concentration or amount of analyte introduced in a given
analytical procedure
terms specific to chromatography
3. (minimum) detectability
(MD)
minimum concentration or mass flux of analyte passing through a
detector in unit time that can be discerned from the noise with
reasonable certainty
apparent synonyms3 minimum detectable level, minimum detectable concentration
4. detector sensitivity (S^) slope of the detector response curve signal output per unit
concentration (or per unit amount/unit time) of analyte passing
through a detector
aThe use of these apparent synonyms should be discontinued immediately.


16
series (27), the most accurate method reported for z < -3. (Comparison
with values for obtained via error function techniques when z > -3
(1^ > 10-3) is not illustrative since the maximum absolute error in the
polynomial approximation 1^(z) is estimated to be + 7.5 x 10^.)
Table 2.3 shows that our method for evaluating is exceptionally
accurate for moderate values of z. Moreover, it compares favorably with
the asymptotic series method for evaluating 1^, except for z < -8 where
the latter method is somewhat better. Re-examination of Table 2.1
shows, however, that for all practical purposes z > -8 whenever t/o^ _>
0.2. Thus our method for evaluation of 1^ can be used to evaluate the
EMG function to within 1 % or less for t/c^ 0.2.
While being slightly less accurate than the most accurate previous
method, the new technique for evaluating the EMG function is much more
convenient than any of the previous methods. Only one simple subroutine
requiring just a few programming lines (see lines 2990-3160 in Appendix
A) is needed, whereas the other methods require at least two
subroutines, if implemented on any computer without a built-in error
function routine (i.e., nearly all microcomputers and many
minicomputers).
Obtaining Universal EMG Data
Background
Using the polynomial approximation for the integral in eq 2.4, the
EMG function can be evaluated over the entire practical time range.
Depending on the data required for the modeling process of interest, the
EMG peaks could be generated "on the fly" as needed. Alternatively, the
necessary EMG data could be generated (and stored) in advance and
accessed when needed.
Though the storage requirements may seem


98
25.
26.
27.
2.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Vi.W. Yau. Characterizing Skewed Chromatographic Band Broadening.
Anal. Chem., 49: 395-398 (1977).
R.E. Pauls and L.B. Rogers. Comparison of Methods for Calculating
Retention and Separation of Chromatographic Peaks. Sep. Sci. and
Tech., 12: 395-413 (1977).
E. Grushka. Characterization of Exponentially Modified Peaks in
Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 44: 1733-1738 (1972).
S.M. Roberts, D.H. Wilkinson, and L.R. Walker. Practical Least
Squares Approximation of Chromatograms. Anal. Chem., 42: 886-893
(1970).
A.H. Anderson, T.C. Gibb, and A.B. Littlewood. Computer Resolution
of Unresolved Convolved Gas-Chromatographic Peaks. J. Chromatogr.
Sci., 8: 640-646 (1970).
I.G. McWilliam and H.C. Bolton. Instrumental Peak Distortion III.
Analysis of Overlapping Curves. Anal. Chem., 43: 883-889 (1971).
W.E. Barber and P.W. Carr. Graphical Method for Obtaining
Retention Time and Number of Theoretical Plates from Tailed
Chromatographic Peaks. Anal. Chem., 53: 1939-1942 (1981).
P.W. Carr, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, personal
communication, supplementary material from reference 31.
M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, Eds. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions, Applied Mathematics Series No. 55. National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, D.C. 1964, p. 932.
D.G. Peters, J.M. Hayes, and G.M. Hieftje. Chemical Separations
and Measurements, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1974, p. 18.
R.S. Burington. Handbook of Mathematical Tables and Formulas, 5th
Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973, pp. 424-427.
B.L. Karger, M. Martin, and G. Guichon. Role of Column Parameters
and Injection Volume on Detection Limits In Liquid Chromatography.
Anal. Chem., 46: 1640-1647 (1974).
N.H.C. Cooke, B.G. Archer, K. Olsen, and A. Berick. Comparison of
Three- and Five-Micrometer Columns Packings for Reversed-Phase
Liquid Chromatography. Anal. Chem., 52: 2277-2283 (1982).
General Gas Chromatography Procedures. ASTM E 260-73, American
Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.; originally
published 1965; latest revision 1973.
Gas Chromatography Terms and Relationships. ASTM E 355-77,
American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.;
originally published 1968; latest revision 1977.


65
associated concepts, [e.g., the calibration curve, the sample (analyte +
matrix), etc.] have identical, straightforward interpretations in
chromatography. One aspect, however, does not: the measurement of Sg.
Intuitively it is clear that the chromatographic baseline is
somehow analogous to the blank signal in spectroscopy. We can now refer
to Sg as the standard deviation of the chromatographic baseline (noise).
The measurement of Sg remains unclear, however.
One possible procedure would be to estimate Sg from 20 or more
measurements of only that portion of the baseline observed at the
analyte's retention time in the absence of the analyte (when a blank
solution is injected). This is directly analogous to the measurement of
the blank signal (at the analytical wavelength) in spectroscopy. Such a
literal procedure would require at least 20 injections of blank solution
(20 blank chromatograms!) and is obviously too impractical:
1. It would be much too time consuming!
2. It may require too much blank solution.
3. Variables which affect retention would require strict control.
4. The retention time of the analyte would need to be known very
precisely.
A much more practical procedure becomes apparent if one remembers
that the standard deviation (root mean square) of a random (periodic)
signal can be closely approximated by the quotient of the range (peak-
to-peak displacement) and a parameter, p, dependent on the type of
signal, i.e.,
Signal = range/p (4.6a)
for the measurement of sg, it should be noted that the range is
equivalent to the peak-to-peak noise of the baseline, N if the
tr r
latter is measured over a sufficiently wide region of the chromatogram
which includes the analyte peak. Additionally, the baseline usually


8
employed an Apple II Plus microcomputer. This necessitated, therefore,
the development of a simpler method for evaluating the EMG function and
the incorporation of a simpler, more accurate, and more general set of
algorithms for obtaining the EMG data of interest.
Limit of Detection
The limit of detection (LOD) is generally defined as the smallest
concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected with reasonable
certainty for a given analytical procedure. Though arguably the most
important figure of merit in trace analysis, the LOD remains an
ambiguous quantity in the field of chromatography. Detection limits
differing by orders of magnitude are frequently reported for very
similar (sometimes identical!) chromatographic systems. Such huge
discrepancies raise serious questions about the validity of the LOD
concept in chromatography.
The primary objective of this part of the present work is to
restore the integrity of the LOD concept, to make the chromatographic
LOD a reliable, meaningful figure of merit. This will be accomplished
in two steps: First, the major sources of the discrepancies in
chromatographic detection limits, i.e., the current problems with the
LOD concept, will be identified. Second, each problem will be addressed
and eliminated (or circumvented).


CHAPTER 4
CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMIT OF DETECTION IN CHROMATOGRAPH!
Introduction
In this chapter, the focus is on eliminating the confusion
surrounding the limit of detection (LOD) in chromatography. Some prior
knowledge of the LOD concept is assumed. This discussion primarily
applies to both gas and liquid chromatography using concentration or
mass sensitive detectors whose output is measured as peak height, though
two sections (Eliminating Mistaken Identities and Using the Correct Units)
apply to analyses using peak area as well. Ideal linear elution, i.e.,
Gaussian peak profiles, is assumed though moderate deviations can be
tolerated.
Identifying Current Problems
Literature Survey Results
Initially, to determine the sources of discrepancy in
chromatographic detection limits, we conducted a limited survey of
analytical textbooks, chromatographic monographs, and the primary
chromatographic literature. This survey revealed two mistakes of
omission, as well as four major sources of discrepancies. All six are
summarized in Table 4.1. The first two problems are blatant omissions
which discredit the work reported, at least to some degree. However,
they can be eliminated if more attention is given during manuscript
preparation, and thus may be dismissed without further discussion. The
56


51
corresponding CFOMs Nfflax, aQ and tG represent idealized
chromatographic parameters which would describe the system if all
sources of asymmetry could be eliminated. If all or nearly all
asymmetry is extra-column in origin, then for a given set of conditions
2
Nmax> ctg~ and are valdd descriptors of the efficiency, band
broadening, and retention characteristics of the column.
Pluralism of the method. As might be surmised from Table 3.2,
there is more than one way to calculate several of the CFOMs. The
variance, for example can be calculated via eq 2a from measurements of
WQ>1 and B/A or via eq 2b from tR and Nsys (eq 1). Generally, CFOM
estimates via the "b" equations are simpler, faster, equally precise,
but less accurate than estimates via the "a" equations. This trade-of'f
of accuracy for simplicity and speed is slight, however; in most cases
much time can be saved with little sacrifice in accuracy if the "b"
equations are employed.
Only the simplest and most accurate methods are given in Table 3.2.
Therefore, while NgyS could be calculated from its components tR, cr^,
and t (see NgyS equation in Table 3-1), this method was not reported
since it would be much more time-consuming, tedious, and in all
likelihood less accurate and less precise than the N equation in
sy s
Table 3.2.
Usefulness of RSE. RPL. The relative system efficiency (RSE) and
relative plate loss (RPL), two new parameters defined in Table 3.1, are
dualistic CFOMs. First, they can be interpreted intuitively as
Nsys/Nmax and (Nfflax Nsys)/Nmax, respectively, with a corrective
2
retention factor (tQ/tR) applied. Alternatively, RSE and RPL can be
p
viewed as the relative contributions of symmetrical ( Oq) and


CM CM
88
t/aG
(b/a)0.05
W0.05/aG
(tR-tG)/a
2.05
2.3367
9.7856
1 .0298
2. 1
2.3813
9.9370
1.0414
2.15
2.4237
10.0890
1.0528
2.2
2.4662
10.2406
1.0640
2.25
2.5064
10.3926
1.0750
2.3
2.5509
10.5448
1.0856
2.35
2.5934
10.6968
1.0960
2.4
2.6355
10.6490
1.1064
2.45
2.6778
11.0010
1.1164
2.5
2.7200
11.1534
1.1262
2.55
2.7620
11.3056
1.1360
2.6
2.8044
11.4580
1.1454
2.65
2.8465
11.6104
1.1546
2.7
2.8885
11.7628
1.1638
2.75
2.9303
11.9152
1.1728
2.8
2.9723
12.0678
1.1816
2.85
3.0143
12.2202
1.1902
2.9
3.0561
12.3726
1.1988
2.95
3.0978
12.5252
1.2072
3.0
3.1395
12.6776
1.2154


17
prohibitive for the latter, given a x/oG value and a peak height
fraction, a, three quantities completely specify an EMG peak (31).
Figure 1.1 shows an EMG peak with its pertinent graphical parameters.
Regardless of the retention time, tg, and standard deviation, cr^, of the
(unconvoluted) parent Gaussian peak (not shown), (B/A) Wa/aQi and (tg-
tG)/aG are universal constants so long as t/q and a remain fixed.
Recent work has utilized these universal data sets almost exclusively
(31).
Experimentally, three parameters must be determined in order to
calculate the universal data: tR, tA, and tg (see Figure 1.1). Note
that tR must be obtained before tA or tg because hg = hgf/jQ(tp) is needed
for the latter.
Measurement of the Pertinent Peak Parameters
Previous methods. In the past, tR has been determined by one or
more of the following methods: a) peak displacement data and knowledge
of tG (19); b) differentiation of hgMG(t) and solving for roots (26);
and c) least squares fitting of the top of the peak with a quadratic
gram polynomial (26,31).
Once tg has been found, tA and tg can be located. In the only
method reported previously, two points [t^, hEMG(t-|)], [t2, hEMG^t2^
are found so that t-¡ < tA < t2 (or t^ < tg < t2). Linear interpolation
yields the approximation for t^ (or tg).
This work. The approach for finding these quantities is based on
iterative search mechanisms, as the flowchart in Figure 2.1 shows. In
the case of tR, initial time limits are easily found using the fact that
tR is always greater than t^. The EMG function is then evaluated from


80
Table 4.6. Reconciling the differences in the detection limits
from the numerical example in Table 4.2
Step
lda
LODg
Initial
8.7 x 106 M
3.0 x 10"9 M
3.5
0.6
Amount
44 pmol
60 fmol
2.9
1.3
IUPAC def'n
2.6 pmol
60 fmol
1.6
1.6
qL ,std
150 fmol
150 fmol
0.0


CHAPTER 5
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
The results of this work should facilitate and encourage the study
of a number of related and unrelated topics. A few examples are given
below.
With regard to the standardized chromatographic LOD concept
introduced in Chapter 4, if open tubular liquid chromatograpy ever comes
of age, it will be desirable to extend the LOD concept to this area by
defining two additional reference states (bandwidths).
The successful generation of the exponentially modified Gaussian
(EMG) function by microcomputer and subsequent measurement of the
associated universal data should encourage others to use this realistic
model in related or unrelated modeling studies. One project which has
already been suggested by Kirkland et al. (23) is the development of a
chromatographic resolution function (equation) which is applicable to
skewed peaks as well as to ideal ones.
The equations recommended in Chapter 3 for the characterization of
skewed (ENG) and Gaussian peaks could be tested on analomous peaks
resulting from column overloading, nonlinear distribution isotherms, and
other sources of analomous peak distortion.
p
Since the graphical deconvolution of the symmetric (Oq ) and
p
asymmetric (x^) sources of band broadening is now possible via eqs 3 and
4 in Table 3.2, the next step would be the development of methods for
2 2
measuring the individual components of and t .
82


18
Figure 2.1. Simplified flowchart for locating tR (and hp), tA> or t .
The EilG peak parameters must be input before beginning this
search.


Table 3*3. Equations for Use Only in Peak Modeling1"
equation
% rel
error limits*3
%RSD
limits
Nsys
= 6.68(tR/W0>1)2/[(B/A)0>3 0.3]
+ 2.0%
+ 4.0
M2,a
= W0>32/[-3.85(B/A)0 33+23(B/A)0>32-47.9(B/A)0i3+38.7]
-0.5, +1.0
o
=r
+l
M2,b
= ^'sys
+ t Q
+ 4.1
G =
W0>3/t2.8(B/A)0i3 + 0.48]
-2.0, +1.0
+ 2.5
Ta =
l2,a G21U2
-0.5, +6.0C
d
II
JO
[M2,b ~ aQ2]*/2
-1.5, +9.5e
d
tG =
tR Og[0.6(B/A)Q o2 + 2.58(B/A)0 n 1.58]
+ 0.5f
+ 0.2
aBased on tR, Wq<3, and (B/A)q 3 measurements. (B/A)q 3 measurements should be made to two
decimal places. Numerical coefficients should not be rounded further.
bValid for 1.06 <_ (B/A)q 3 < 2.08, which corresponds to 1.09 _< (B/A)g ^ <. 2.76.
cError limits are -0.5%, +2.0% for 1.19 <. (B/A)q ^ <. 2.76.
^Precision ranges from +. 13-9% at (B/A)q ^ = 1.09 to 2.0% at (B/A)q ^ = 2.76 in a manner similar
to the t, t/oq curve shown in Figure 3.1."
eError limits are -1.5%, +4.0% for 1.19 <. (B/A)q ^ <. 2.76.
f
Error limits reported for tG/crG = 20. For tq/ 20, the error limits will be smaller than those
reported.
4^


40
Table 3.6. Suggested Cnromatographic Measurement Conditions and
the Resulting Precision (%RSD) Achieved for tR, W and (B/A)a
Conditions
1. Chromatogram recording rate: 1 cm/c^ (Wq ^ >. 4.3 cm)
2. Ruler resolution: 0,2 mm
3. Minimum retention distance, (tB),: 10 cm
n lam
4. Minimum peak height, (hp)min: 10 cm
Resultsa,b
CF0M
(a = 0.1) (a = 0.3)
(a = 0.5)
bR
0.2 identical
identical
bL
CL
+ 1.0 + 1.0
1.0
(B/A)a
+2.0 2.5
3-0
aData obtained from reference 32 and subsequently converted (see
Detailed Discussion of Precision) for a = 0.1, 0.5results
interpolated for a = 0.3.
b%RSD(tR) rounded to nearest 0.1%; %RSDs for Wa, (B/A)a rounded
to nearest 0.25%.


27
RE = (G T)/T (3.1)
which can be rearranged to give
T = G/(RE + 1) (3.2)
Thus, the true value T and the Gaussian approximation G for the CFOM are
related by the correction term (RE + 1) in the denominator of eq 3.2.
Kirkland et al. have shown that
RE = f(T/aQ) (3.3)
for the three popular Gaussian-based methods for determining plate
counts of a system (23). Equation 33 should hold, in fact, for any
CFOM for which a Gaussian approximation exists except tQ. Since Barber
and Carr have shown (3D that
T/aQ = f(B/A) (3.4)
successive substitution of eqs 3*3 and 3-4 into eq 3.2 yields
T = G/[f(B/A) + 1] (3.5)
Although the exact form of f(B/A) is unknown, a least squares curve
fitting of an RE versus B/A plot can give an excellent approximation.
The above approach was used for calculation of NSyS> aG, and 1Mg.
Following this,T was calculated (see sixth equation, Table 3-D by
t = [M2 -g2]1/2 (3.6)
For the determination of tG, the universal relationship
(tR tQ)/crQ = f ( VOq) (3.7)
previously reported (3D was rearranged and combined with eq 3.4 to give
tR <7Qf(B/A)
(3.8)


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF
CHROMATOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF MERIT
By
JOE PRESTON FOLEY
December 1983
Chairman: Dr. John G. Dorsey
Major Department: Chemistry
The measurement and interpretation of several chromatographic
concepts and parameters, hereafter referred to as chromatographic
figures of merit (CFOMs) are improved via equations and concepts
developed in this work.
The previous uses of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG)
model in chromatography are briefly reviewed. A method for evaluating
the EMG function and a set of algorithms for obtaining universal data
are presented and are shown to be simpler and easier to use than those
previously reported. The corresponding BASIC program, EMG-U, is also
briefly discussed.
By use of the exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) as the skewed
peak model, empirical equations based solely on the graphically
measurable retention time, t^, peak width at 10$ peak height, Wq -¡, and
vi


10
the retention time, tg, and standard deviation, cTq, of the parent
Gaussian function; and the time constant, t, 0f the exponential decay-
function. In addition, the quotient t/o^ is a fundamental measure of an
EMG peak's asymmetry. The arbitrary constant A determines the amplitude
of the function. Note that the right hand side of eq 2.1 can be broken
into 3 parts: the pre-exponential term (PE^), the exponential term
(E^), and the integral term (1^).
Discrepancies. A literature survey which I conducted revealed
three discrepancies in eq 2.1. In the first instance, a factor of 2
difference observed in the pre-exponential term, PE^, is relatively
unimportant because this affects only the zeroth statistical moment
(peak area). All other parameters, including higher order moments which
are normalized by the zeroth moment, are unchanged by this factor of 2.
The second and third discrepancies are serious, however. Both were
observed in the denominator of the second quotient, (t tQ)/T, within
the exponential term, E^. In one case, an additional factor of 2 was
present; in the other, Oq was added to this denominator and omitted from
the numerator of the pre-exponential term, PE^. These errors invalidate
those expressions for the EMG function.
Evaluation of the Integral Term
Range of z. The methods used to evaluate eq 2.1 have frequently
been omitted from the EMG literature. Since the evaluation of the first
two terms is straightforward, the reported methods differ only in the
manner in which the integral, I-j, is determined; the 1^ approximations,
in turn, depend on the value of z in the upper limit of 1^. It is
convenient to group the range of possible z values into three regions:
a) z _< -3; b)-3 <. z < 4; and c) z >. 4 In region c, the definite


59
Table 4.2. Example of widely differing detection limits
Assumptions
1. Liquid chromatograph with UV absorbance detector
2. beers Law applies, i.e., A = ebc.
3. Analytical sensitivity, S = eb = 10,000 A L mol1
4. Peak to peak noise, Np_p = 2 x 10^ AU
5. Root mean square noise, Nrms = 1/5 Np_p
Variables Experiment A Experiment ,B
Vinj 5 uL 20 uL
L0D defn 10 Np_p/S 3 Nrffls/S
VM(mL)
k
N (plates)
Results
LODs reported
log (loda/lodb)
2.5
10
1000
0.5
3
10,000
8.7 x 106 m 3.0 x 10~9 M
= 3*5 orders of magnitude difference!


Table 3.2. Recommended Equations for Chromatographic Figures of Merita
asymmetry % rel % RSD
no.
equation
range
: (B/A)
error limits
limits
1
^sys
= 41.7 (tR/W0<1)2/(B/A + 1.25)
1.00
2.77
- 2.76
-4.00
-1.5, +1.0
-10.0, -1.5
+ 2.5
2a
M2 =
W0.i2/L1.764 (B/A)2 11.15 (B/A) + 2b]
1.00
- 2.76
-1.5, +0.5
+ 2.2
2b
m2 =
tR2/Nsys
1.00
-2.76
-1.0, +1.5
+ 2.4
3
G =
WQt12/[3.27 (B/A) + 1.2]
1.09
- 2.76
-1.0, +0.5b
+ 2.0
4a
T =
[M2(eq 2a) aQ2]1/2
1.09
- 2.76
-1.0, +3.5
f
4b
T =
[M2(eq 2b) aQ2]1/2
1.09
- 2.76
-0.5, +5.0
f
h-*
5a
x/aG
= x (eq 4a)/G
1.09
- 2.76
-1.0, +4.5
f
5b
t/cg
= x(eq 4b)/aG
1.09
- 2.76
-0.5, +6.0
f
6
tG =
tR aGt-0.193(B/A)2 + 1.162(B/A) 0.545]
1.00
- 2.76
+ 0.5d
+ 0.2
7
Nmax
= 1.09
- 2.76
-0.5, +1.0
+ 2.0
8
RSE
= 0.99(B/A)"2-24
1.00
- 2.76
+ 2.0
+ 4.5
9
*
RPL
= 1 RSE
1.09
- 2.76
-6.0, +1.5
f


B/A
PERCENT ERROR
200