grzegorz kiełbowicz 8th iscnp. 17-20 may, 2012, lublin,
Post on 26-Jan-2017
260 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 1
Analysis of underivatized fatty acids by LC and charged aerosol detector
Grzegorz KiełbowiczCzesław Wawrzeńczyk
Department of Chemistry, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences,
O
O
O
O
O
R2
R1
P
O
O-
O CH2CH2N+
CH3
CH3
CH3
O
O
O
O
O
R2
R1
P
O
O-
O CH2CH2N+
H
H
H
O
O
O
O
O
R2
R1
O
R3
O
OH
RO
OH
R
O
OH
R
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 2
Presentation plan
1. Introduction1.1. Detection of fatty acids1.2. Derivatization of fatty acids1.3. Charge aerosol detector (Corona™ CAD™)
2. Method development2.2. ECL (equivalent chain length)2.3. Organic solvent effect2.4. Temperature effect2.5. Programming method 2.6. Validation
3. Application to egg yolk lipids
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 3
1.1. Detection of fatty acids
1. Gas chromatography (GC) Derivatization !!!• FID – the most commonly used detector
2. Liquid chromatography (LC)• UV Derivatization !!!
• Aerosol detectors (ELSD, CAD, CNLSD)• Mass spectrometry• Refractive index (RI)• Electrochemical detectors (ECD) …
e.g. methyl esters
chromophore
Derivatization
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 4
Derivatization
Complication
Labor-intense
Time-consuming
Unwanted oxidation
Unwanted izomerization
Excess reagent orsolvents
1.2. Derivatization of fatty acids
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 5
1.3. Charge aerosol detector (Corona™ CAD™)
http://coronacad.com
• Excellent Sensitivity and Reproducibility
• Consistent Response Response Independent of Chemical
Structure• Wide Dynamic Range• Broad Applicability Analyzes any Non-Volatile Molecule No need for a chromophore or
ionization• Intuitive Operation
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 6
2.1. Equivalent chain length (ECL)
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 7
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Thermo Betasil C18
MeOH 90%/30°CLinear (MeOH 90%/30°C)ACN 90%/30°CLinear (ACN 90%/30°C)MeOH 80%/30°CLinear (MeOH 80%/30°C)ACN 80%/30°C
Carbon number
log
k
• logk of saturated fatty acids is linearly related to the solute carbon number • higher temperature , higher % of organic modifier lower retention
How to determine „real value” of unsaturated fatty acids ECL ?
ECL=(logk-intercept)/slope
1. Plots of logk vs carbon numbers of saturated fatty acids
2. Determination of ECL from the linear regression of the plots
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 8
Fatty acidTheoretical ECL
ECL=N-2nEmpirical ECL
ECL=(logk-intercept)/slope
Docosahexaenoic 22:6 (DHA) 10 13.3
Eikozapentaenoic 20:5 (EPA) 10 12.8
Linolenic 18:3 12 13.2
Arachidonic 20:4 12 14.0
Mirystic 14:0 14 14.0
Palmitooleic 16:1 14 14.0
Linoleic18:2 14 14.5
Palmitic 16:0 16 16.0
Oleic 18:1 16 15.9
Stearic 18:0 18 18.0
Theoretical ECL vs Empirical ECL
Polyunsaturated fatty acids with three or more double bonds do not follow the ECL rule !!!
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 9
75 80 85 900
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
14:0
16:0
16:118:1
18:2
18:3
20:4DHA
EPA
% MeOH
log
k
70 75 80 85 90 95-0.2
-1.66533453693773E-16
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
14:00
16:00
16:01
18:01
18:02
18:03
20:04
DHA
EPA
% ACN
log
k
2.2. Organic solvent effect (1)
1. The increase of the organic solvent composition decreased the polarity of the mobile phase and hence, the capacity factor was linearly decreased
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 10
2. As the solvent strength increases, retention times for the less hydrophobic compounds will decrease faster
Fatty acid Intercept (b)a Slope(a)aRatios of k at 80% and 90% MeOH
14:0 1.69 -0.3271 4.96
16:0 2.11 -0.3611 5.7116:1 1.77 -0.3411 5.14
18:0 2.54 -0.4100 7.7918:1 2.16 -0.3722 6.04
18:2 1.94 -0.3670 5.70
18:3 1.65 -0.3224 5.32
20:0 2.96 -0.4551 8.9920:4 1.86 -0.3584 5.99
20:5 1.61 -0.3181 5.29
22:6 1.83 -0.3517 5.70
Fatty acid Intercept (b)a Slope(a)aRatios of k at 80%
and 90% ACN
14:0 3.01 -0.0295 1.92
16:0 3.69 -0.0342 2.1616:1 3.22 -0.0319 2.06
18:0 4.60 -0.0415 2.4418:1 3.85 -0.0363 2.29
18:2 3.46 -0.0343 2.19
18:3 2.98 -0.0306 2.01
20:0 5.09 -0.0439 2.8220:4 3.47 -0.0356 2.28
20:5 2.99 -0.0316 2.09
22:6 3.34 -0.0350 2.22alog k = a(%ACN) + balog k = a(%MeOH) + b
2.2. Organic solvent effect (2)
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 11
2.2. Organic solvent effect (3)
75 80 85 90 9513
14
15
16
17
16:0118:118:0218:0320:04DHAEPA
MeOH (%)
ECL
70 75 80 85 90 9511
12
13
14
15
16
17
16:01
18:01
18:02
18:03
20:04
DHA
EPA
ACN (%)
ECL
3. The decrease of the organic solvent composition inreased the overall resolution
4. The resolution was greater at low organic solvent composition
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 12
2.3. The effect of temperature (Van’t Hoff equation)
1. The influence of temperature on solute capacity factor (k), is a function of the free energy changes in the interaction between the solute and thestationary phase
System enthalpy System entropy
Universal gas constantAbsolute temperature
System phase ratio
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 13
0.00315 0.0032 0.00325 0.0033 0.00335 0.0034 0.00345 0.0035 0.00355 0.00360
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1/T (K-1)
ln k
0.00310 0.00320 0.00330 0.00340 0.00350 0.003600
0.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
14:0016:0016:0118:0018:0118:0218:0320:0020:04EPADHA
1/T (K-1)
ln k
2.3. The effect of temperature (Van’t Hoff plots)
ACN:H2O 90:10MeOH:H2O 90:10
2. Logk should be linearly ralated to the inverse temperature if the system enthalpy and entropy are invariant
3. Linear behaviour at temperature 10-40°C (R2>0.99)
4. 25°C - „phase transition” of the C18 stationary phase from liquid-like structure to solid-like structure
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 14
10 15 20 25 30 35 4013
14
15
16
17
Temperature (°C)
ECL
10 15 20 25 30 35 4011
12
13
14
15
16
16:0118:0118:0218:0320:04EPADHA
Temperature (°C)
ECL
2.3. The effect of temperture on ECL
5. The ECL was decreased as the temperature was decreased
6. 25°C - optimal temperature - column back pressure vs resolution
MeOH ACN
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 15
2.5. Programming method
Detector: Corona™ CAD™Column: Thermo Betasil C18Mobile phase: ACN: Buffer (1%HCOOH, 0,1%TEA)Flow: 1mL/minTemperature: 25°CSegmented gradient elution
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 16
Compound Range (µg) Power model(y=axb)
S (mV/µg)(Abxb-1)a
LOD (ng)(3.3 x σ/S)b
LOQ (ng)(10 x σ/S)b
Equation R2
1 Ricinoleic acid 0.018-4.48 5.4967(±0.01)x1.0526 (±0.01) 0.9985 4.7 11.0 33.0
2 Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (20:5) 0.018-4.54 17.177(±0.06)x0.9354(±0.00) 0.9984 20.8 10.2 30.8
3 Linolenic acid (18:3) 0.017-4.18 17.140(±0.01)x0.9326(±0.01) 0.9974 21.0 1.5 4.6
4 Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (22:6) 0.019-4.93 20.600(±0.07)x0.9533(±0.00) 0.9985 23.6 9.7 29.3
5 Palmitoleic acid (16:1) 0.076-3.82 12.668(±0.07)x0.8096 (±0.00) 0.9941 16.7 13.6 41.1
6 Arachidonic acid(20:4) 0.018-4.57 22.615(±0.05)x0.9201 (±0.00) 0.9989 28.7 6.1 18.6
7 Linoleic acid(18:2) 0.017-4.21 19.868(±0.11)x0.9204 (±0.00) 0.9956 25.3 14.8 44.9
8 Palmitic acid(16:0) 0.015-3.85 15.246(±0.03)x1.0475 (±0.00) 0.9989 13.1 6.8 20.6
9 Oleic acid(18:1) 0.017-4.24 19.073(±0.01)x1.0794 (±0.00) 0.9978 14.9 1.85 5.6
10 Stearic acid(18:0) 0.017-4.27 30.532(±0.07)x1.0608 (±0.00) 0.9975 25.3 9.4 28.5
2.6. Validation (1) (Linearity, Sensitivity, LOD, LOQ)
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 17
Compound Amount(µg)
Peak area(mV/min)
Retention time(min)
(µmol) Mean SD RSD% Mean SD RSD%
Ricinoleic acid 1.79 (0.006) 10.389 0.00 0.04 6.684 0.01 0.17
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (20:5) 1.81 (0.006) 30.094 0.14 0.48 11.897 0.01 0.15
Linolenic acid(18:3) 1.67 (0.006) 27.829 0.05 0.17 12.431 0.02 0.14
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)(22:6) 1.97 (0.006) 39.735 0.05 0.13 14.071 0.022 0.16
Palmitoleic acid (16:1) 1.53 (0.006) 18.021 0.09 0.48 14.451 0.018 0.13
Arachidonic acid(20:4) 1.83 (0.006) 39.591 0.08 0.20 15.082 0.020 0.13
Linoleic acid(18:2) 1.68 (0.006) 31.781 0.02 0.07 15.934 0.02 0.13
Palmitic acid(16:0) 1.54 (0.006) 25.309 0.07 0.29 19.141 0.00 0.03
Oleic acid(18:1) 1.69 (0.006) 36.856 0.17 0.48 19.633 0.00 0.03
Stearic acid(18:0) 1.71 (0.006) 57.350 0.19 0.33 21.395 0.00 0.03
2.6. Validation (2) (Repeatability of CAD response and retention times)
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 18
3. Application to egg yolk lipids
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 19
FA TAG (%)
SD %RSD PE (%)
SD %RSD PC (%)
SD %RSD
Myristic acid(14:0) 0.45 0.02 4.44 - - - - - -
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (20:5) - - - - - - - - -
Linolenic acid(18:3) 1.02 0.04 3.72 - - - - - -
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (22:6) 0.1 0.01 5.97 6.96 0.17 2.44 2.24 0.14 6.37
Palmitoleic acid (16:1) 5.98 0.02 0.35 - - - 1.2 0.09 7.26
Arachidonic acid(20:4) 0.38 0.01 2.63 14.86 0.18 1.24 5.13 0.14 2.83
Linoleic acid(18:2) 17.43 0.20 1.16 14.2 0.19 1.34 15.4 0.04 0.23
Palmitic acid(16:0) 24.09 0.13 0.52 17.52 0.66 3.75 33.64 0.43 1.27
Oleic acid(18:1) 46.24 0.15 0.32 18.37 0.68 3.69 27.14 0.80 2.96
Stearic acid(18:0) 4.31 0.16 3.62 27.82 1.52 5.47 15.25 0.39 2.59
Egg yolk fatty acids profile
8th ISCNP, 17-20 May,2012, Lublin 20
Thank you for your attention !
top related