TY - JOUR
T1 - Hydrodynamic radius determination with asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation using decaying cross-flows. Part II. Experimental evaluation.
AU - Magnusson, Emma
AU - Håkansson, Andreas
AU - Janiak, John
AU - Bergenståhl, Björn
AU - Nilsson, Lars
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - In this study we investigate the effect of programmed cross-flows on the error in the hydrodynamic radii (r(h)) determination with asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AsFlFFF). Three different standard polystyrene particles (nominal radii of 30 and 40 and 50nm) are fractionated with exponentially and linearly decaying cross-flows with different decay rates. Hydrodynamic radii are calculated according to retention theory including steric effects. Rapid decay is expected to give rise to systematic deviations in r(h) determination. The error in r(h) was found to be small when decay rates with half-lives longer than 6min were used, whereas steeper decays could give rise to errors as high as 16% of the particle size. The error is often explained in terms of secondary relaxation. However, comparisons show that experimental errors are significantly larger than what would be expected due to secondary relaxation, suggesting that other factors also have to be considered in order to fully understand deviations for rapidly decaying cross-flow.
AB - In this study we investigate the effect of programmed cross-flows on the error in the hydrodynamic radii (r(h)) determination with asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AsFlFFF). Three different standard polystyrene particles (nominal radii of 30 and 40 and 50nm) are fractionated with exponentially and linearly decaying cross-flows with different decay rates. Hydrodynamic radii are calculated according to retention theory including steric effects. Rapid decay is expected to give rise to systematic deviations in r(h) determination. The error in r(h) was found to be small when decay rates with half-lives longer than 6min were used, whereas steeper decays could give rise to errors as high as 16% of the particle size. The error is often explained in terms of secondary relaxation. However, comparisons show that experimental errors are significantly larger than what would be expected due to secondary relaxation, suggesting that other factors also have to be considered in order to fully understand deviations for rapidly decaying cross-flow.
U2 - 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.07.005
DO - 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.07.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 22818771
SN - 1873-3778
VL - 1253
SP - 127
EP - 133
JO - Journal of chromatography. A
JF - Journal of chromatography. A
ER -