I had a telephone call the other day from a chromatographer who spends a large part of his time transferring liquid chromatography
(LC) methods to other laboratories. He was inquiring if there was a way to quickly isolate the source of problems he encounters
so that he can correct them. Troubleshooting is a normal part of my daily job, whether it is writing this column, teaching
troubleshooting techniques, or consulting. For me, troubleshooting is second nature, as it is for many of you. However, we
all have to build troubleshooting skills from some starting point. This month, I'd like to review some of the techniques that
I find most powerful when trying to isolate problems.
Divide and Conquer
This is perhaps the most powerful strategy for problem isolation. I borrowed the term years ago from John Hinshaw, who writes
the "GC Connections" column for LCGC. My partner, Tom Jupille, calls it the Binary Search. Whatever term you like to use, the divide-and-conquer process helps
you to efficiently get to the root cause of a problem. It is very simple — just figure out a test that divides all possible
problem sources into two large parts. Make the test and the results should allow you to eliminate half the potential sources.
Repeat this process with the remaining possibilities until you have found the root cause of problem. This technique comes
so naturally after a while that it seems trivial, yet I am regularly surprised to find it ignored in the troubleshooting process.
Let's take an example of inconsistent retention times observed when examining the results of an overnight run. Three possible
problem sources come quickly to mind. Could it be associated with the column, the mobile phase, or the instrument? First,
we should take a closer look at the data — is the variation observed only with the samples or also with the standards? Let's
say it happens with both. Now we need to determine if the method is behaving properly under controlled conditions. The easiest
way to do this is to repeat the system suitability test. We observe that system suitability fails due to retention time variation,
but the peak area, peak shape, and resolution requirements are met.
At this point, we could shift to the most obvious cause (see below) — pump problems — but we will continue with the divide-and-conquer
strategy. You might wonder if we have a problem with the instrument or with the method itself. My next step in divide-and-conquer
might be to determine which of these major areas is at fault. So I put a new C18 column (or one I've dedicated to this process)
in the system and run the column manufacturer's column test. I'll inject the test sample six times so that I can calculate
retention-time precision. If I can get results that are close to what the column manufacturer obtained in terms of column
plate number, peak tailing, and retention time, this suggests that the instrumentation is working correctly. Don't expect
exactly the same values the manufacturer quotes, but you should be within 5–10%. Remember that the column manufacturer uses
an LC system that has been optimized for column testing, so it will show off their columns in the best light. If the retention
time precision of the test mixture meets your method-suitability requirements, the results point to a problem related to the
method itself — the column and mobile phase would be the next items to examine. If retention precision is poor, look next
for problems associated with flow rate or on-line mixing. Three major influences on flow rate are check-valve performance,
pump-seal wear, and bubbles. On-line mixing problems can be isolated by comparing results with hand-mixed mobile phases.