I regularly receive e-mails from readers with a wide variety of questions. Some of these blossom into full-blown columns,
but many are answered with just a short response. As I cleaned out my inbox recently, I chose a few of these to share. There
is no central theme this month, but hopefully you will pick up some useful information from these topics related to practical
operation of the liquid chromatography (LC) system.
Should I use a Guard Column or an In-Line Filter?
If you are a regular reader of "LC Troubleshooting", you will know that I am a strong proponent of using an in-line filter
to protect the LC column. The filter contains a frit, most commonly 0.5 ľm in porosity, and is mounted directly downstream
from the autosampler. Its purpose is to trap the stray particle that can be injected with the sample or that results from
pump-seal or injector-rotor wear. Columns packed with 5 ľm diameter particles use 2 ľm porosity frits to hold the particles
in the column, and 3 ľm particle columns use 0.5 ľm frits on the outlet and either 0.5 or 2 ľm frits on the inlet. Thus, the
0.5 ľm in-line filter will catch any particles that would otherwise block the frit at the head of the column packed with 3
or 5 ľm particles. When the system pressure rises significantly, for example by 25%, change the frit for a new one and you
should be back in business. For columns packed with sub-2 ľm particles, 0.2 ľm frits are used in the column, so the in-line
filter porosity should be no larger than this or it will not be effective. Two common filter designs are available. One comprises
a reusable holder that is disassembled to replace the frit. The other is a disposable unit that screws into the end of the
column. I believe that the in-line filter is the least expensive way to protect the column from blockage.
Guard columns have frits at both ends, so they also act as in-line filters. The packing material in the guard column should
be selected to match the guard column (same stationary phase type, such as C18 and from the same manufacturer). This packing
will trap materials that otherwise would bind irreversibly to the top of the analytical column, thus, extending analytical
column life. My problem with guard columns is that, at best, they do not degrade the separation, and more typically, they
slightly reduce the column efficiency and resolution. You might think that the additional column length contributed by the
guard column might improve the separation, but guard columns are not well packed and the additional fittings can add extracolumn
volume. An additional challenge is to determine when the guard column needs to be replaced — most workers do this on a time-in-use
or samples-injected basis, both of which require a little more record keeping. Furthermore, guard columns are fairly expensive,
so I have a hard time justifying the extra cost for the benefits I receive. As a result, I don't use a guard column unless
I'm using a method developed by someone else that designates guard column use. You are welcome to use a guard column, it just
isn't my first choice. If you do use a guard column, I still recommend installing an in-line filter between the autosampler
and the guard column.