Articles The Effect of Stationary-Phase Pore Size on Retention Behavior in Micellar Liquid Chromatography Timothy J. McCormick, †,‡ Joe P. Foley,* ,§ Christopher M. Riley, † and David K. Lloyd † Department of Chemistry, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, Pharmaceutical Research and Development, The DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19880, and Department of Chemistry, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085 One of the limitations that has restricted the applicability of micellar liquid chromatography (MLC) is the weak eluting power of micellar mobile phases compared to conventional hydro-organic mobile phases used in re- versed-phase liquid chromatography. This may be the result of Donnan or steric exclusion of the micelles from the pores of the stationary phase, within which nearly all (g9 9 %) of the stationary phase resides and the analytes spend most of their time. To determine whether wide-pore stationary phases would overcome this limitation in MLC, several C8 and C1 8 stationary phases ranging from 1 0 0 to 4000 Å were investigated using a diverse set of test solutes and micellar solutions of anionic, neutral, and cationic surfactants as mobile phases. With the larger pore size stationary phases, the eluting power of the MLC mobile phases was enhanced with all surfactant types, the greatest effect being with the neutral surfactant. Differ- ences in retention behavior were observed between vari- ous solute types and between the C8 and C18 stationary phases. These differences appear to be related to the relative hydrophobicity of the solutes and to differences in the surfactant-modified stationary phases. Partitioning behavior of representative solutes on the large-pore C8 and C18 columns was shown to follow the three-phase partitioning model for MLC. Methylene group selectivity data showed only minor differences in the stationary- phase characteristics between the small- and large-pore size C1 8 columns. The true eluting power of micellar mobile phases was revealed with wide-pore stationary phases and was demonstrated by the separation and elution of an extended series of alkylphenones on C18 columns. In 1980, Armstrong and Henry first reported on the use of an aqueous micellar solution as the mobile phase in high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for the separation of phenols and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. 1 Since that time, numerous other investigators have studied the unique properties and capabilities of micellar mobile phases in reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RPLC) including such aspects as retention behavior, 2-5 solvent strength and selectivity 4,6-8 , efficiency, 9-16 gradient elution, 17-20 detection, 21-23 and direct injection of biologi- cal fluids. 24-29 Some of the main advantages of micellar liquid * Corresponding author: (e-mail) jfoley@ drexel.edu. † The DuPont Pharmaceutical Co. ‡ Villanova University. § Drexel University. (1) Armstrong, D. W.; Henry, S. J. J. Liq. Chromatogr. 1980 , 3, 657-662. (2) Armstrong, D. W.; Stine, G. Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983 , 105, 6220-6223. (3) Armstrong, D. W.; Stine, G. Y. Anal. Chem. 1983 , 55, 2317-2320. (4) Khaledi, M. G. Anal. Chem. 1988 , 60, 876-887. (5) Khaledi, M. G.; Peuler, E.; Ngeh-Ngwainbi, J. Anal. Chem. 1987 , 59, 2738- 2747. (6) Khaledi, M. G.; Strasters, J. K.; Rodgers, A. H.; Breyer, E. D. Anal. Chem. 1990 , 62, 130-136. (7) Kord, A. S.; Khaledi, M. G. Anal. Chem. 1992 , 64, 1894-1900. (8) Kord, A. S.; Khaledi, M. G. J. Chromatogr. 1993 , 631, 125-132. (9) Lavine, B. K.; Cooper, W. T., III.; He, Y.; Hendayana, S.; Han, J. H.; Tetreault, J. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1994 , 165, 497-504. (10) Lavine, B. K.; Hendayana, S. J. Liq. Chromatogr., Relat. Technol. 1996 , 19, 101-123. (11) Dorsey, J. G. Adv. Chromatogr. 1987 , 27, 167-214. (12) Dorsey, J. G.; DeEchegaray, M. T.; Landy, J. S. Anal. Chem. 1983 , 55, 924-928. (13) Yarmchuk, P.; Weinberger, R.; Hirsch, R. T.; Cline Love, L. J. J. Chromatogr. 1984 , 283, 47-60. (14) Borgerding, M. F.; Hinze, W. L.; Stafford, L. D.; George W. Fulp, J.; William C. Hamlin, J. Anal. Chem. 1989 , 61, 1353-1358. (15) Berthod, A.; Borgerding, M. F.; Hinze, W. L. J. Chromatogr. 1991 , 556, 263-275. (16) Bailey, R.; Cassidy, R. M. Anal. Chem. 1992 , 64, 2277-2282. (17) Dorsey, J. G.; Khaledi, M. G.; Landy, J. S.; Lin, L. J. J. Chromatogr. 1984 , 316, 183-191. (18) Khaledi, M. G.; Dorsey, J. G. Anal. Chem. 1985 , 57, 2190-2196. (19) Madamba-Tan, L. S.; Strasters, J. K.; Khaledi, M. G. J. Chromatogr., A 1994 , 683, 321-334. (20) Madamba-Tan, L. S.; Strasters, J. K.; Khaledi, M. G. J. Chromatogr., A 1994 , 683, 335-345. (21) Armstrong, D. W.; Hinze, W. L.; Bui, K. H.; Singh, N. H. Anal. Lett. 1981 , 14, 1659-1667. (22) Cline Love, L. J.; Habarta, J. G.; Dorsey, J. G. Anal. Chem. 1984 , 56, 1132A- 1148A. (23) Hadjmohammadi, M. R.; Fatemi, M. H. J. Liq. Chromatogr. 1995 , 18, 2569- 2578. (24) Cline Love, L. J.; Zibas, S.; Noroski, J.; Arunyanart, M. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 1985 , 3, 511-521. (25) DeLuccia, F. J.; Arunyanart, M.; Yarmchuk, P.; Weinberger, R.; Cline Love, L. J. LC Mag. 1985 , 3, 794, 798, 800. (26) Haginaka, J.; Wakai, J.; Yasuda, H.; Nakagawa, T. Anal. Chem. 1987 , 59, 2732-2734. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 294-301 294 Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 72, No. 2, January 15, 2000 10.1021/ac9903398 CCC: $19.00 © 2000 American Chemical Society Published on Web 12/08/1999