|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Temperature |
Hydrogen (min) |
Helium (min) |
% Faster Analysis |
| 40˚C |
6.50 |
9.15 |
41.5 |
| 60˚C |
2.98 |
4.18 |
40.3 |
| 80˚C |
1.66 |
2.35 |
41.0 |
| 100˚C |
1.14 |
1.58 |
38.24 |
Table 1 illustrates the effect of viscosity on retention time. For all
gases, as temperature increases, viscosity increases. Hydrogen's viscosity is influenced less by temperature than helium's is (figure
1), so it is easier to maintain higher linear velocities with hydrogen.
This ultimately results in faster analysis times, particularly at high temperatures.
TABLE 2: EFFICIENCY COMPARISON OF HYDROGEN AND HELIUM
| Temperature |
Hydrogen |
Helium |
% Improvement |
| 40˚C |
4.48E4 |
4.47E4 |
0.18 |
| 60˚C |
4.13E4 |
4.08E4 |
1.21 |
| 80˚C |
3.87E4 |
3.70E4 |
4.43 |
| 100˚C |
3.51E4 |
2.04E4 |
41.9 |
It was noted from previous research that there is a significant increase in
column efficiency when using hydrogen (see footnote 2). However, what is most curious is that
the difference in the efficiency between hydrogen and helium seemed to increase
as the temperature increased. This phenomenon is attributed to the fact that
the viscosity of helium increases more rapidly with temperature than
does the viscosity of hydrogen (see figure 1). This causes slower mass
transfer in the mobile phase and lower column efficiency when using helium.
TABLE 3: RESOLUTION COMPARISON OF HYDROGEN AND HELIUM
| Temperature |
Hydrogen |
Helium |
% improv. using H2 |
| 40˚C |
3.46 |
3.37 |
2.60 |
| 60˚C |
2.71 |
2.66 |
1.80 |
| 80˚C |
1.62 |
1.54 |
5.18 |
| 100˚C |
1.08 |
0.88 |
18.6 |
The most detrimental effect of increasing viscosity is that the target analyte
has more difficulty partitioning through the mobile phase to the surface of
the stationary phase and vice versa. This phenomenon results in slow mass transfer
of the analyte and increased band broadening (See figure 2 and table 3).
However, due to the smaller molecular size of hydrogen, it takes less effort
for the analyte to diffuse through the mobile phase. This results in sharp
and narrow peaks.
Figure 2: Illustration of improvement in
efficiency and resolution when using hydrogen.
Mass transfer in the mobile phase is a function of capacity factor, column radius, and the diffusion coefficient of the solute in the mobile phase. The mass transfer data illustrates that hydrogen as a carrier gas has a higher rate of mass transfer than helium. Due to the larger molecular diameter of helium, it is more difficult for the solute molecules to penetrate the gas layer; as a result, the rate of diffusion is slower.
Figure 3 clearly shows that the rate of mass transfer in the gas phase increases with temperature and decreases with molecular weight, and that the rate of mass transfer is consistently faster when hydrogen is used as the carrier gas. One would expect the rate of mass transfer to decrease with increasing temperature due to the increased viscosity of the carrier gas. It was hypothesized that the more viscous the mobile phase, the slower the rate of mass transfer in the gas phase. However, when the temperature increases, the diffusiveness of the solute in carrier gas increases more than the viscosity, which results in faster mass transfer in the gas phase. Thus, the diffusiveness in the carrier gas plays a more important role than viscosity on column efficiency.
Figure 3: Mass Transfer Data for Hydrogen
and Helium at 200˚C, 250˚C, and 275˚C.
When using thin films, mass transfer in the stationary phase becomes negligible and mass transfer in the mobile phase dominates. This means that the role of the carrier gas dominates and that hydrogen becomes the best carrier gas. The primary goal in capillary gas chromatography is to produce as many theoretical plates as possible. This minimizes HETP, which is desirable. This report proves that when using thin films, hydrogen is the carrier gas of choice due to its faster diffusion in the gas phase and its lower viscosity.
Dr. Harold McNair is Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic and State University. Stephanye Armstrong is currently a graduate student at VPI&SU.
References
1. Hinshaw, John and Ettre, Leslie, Basic Relationships in Gas Chromatography, Advanstar, 1993.
2. Armstrong, Stephanye and McNair, Harold, Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Chicago, Illinois (1994), poster number 1231.
| Copyright © 2002-2008 Power & Energy, Inc. | |