Quantification from highly drifted and overlapped chromatographic peaks using second-order calibration methods.

For determining low levels of pesticides and phenolic compounds in river and wastewater samples by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), solid phase extraction (SPE) is commonly used before the chromatographic separation. This preconcentration step is not necessarily selective for the analytes of interest and it may retain other compounds of similar characteristics as well. In this case, we present, humic and fulvic acids caused a large baseline drift and overlapped the analytes to be quantified. The inaccurate determinations of the area of the peaks of these analytes made it difficult to quantify them with univariate calibration. Here we compare three second-order calibration algorithms (generalized rank annihilation method (GRAM), parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) and multivariate curve resolution-alternating least squares (MCR-ALS)) which efficiently solve this problem. These methods use second-order data, i.e., a matrix of responses for each peak, which is easily obtained with a high performance liquid chromatography-diode array detector (HPLC-DAD). With these methods, the area does not need to be directly measured and predictions are more accurate. They also save time and resources because they can quantify analytes even if the peaks are not resolved. GRAM and PARAFAC require trilinear data. Biased and imprecise concentrations (relative standard deviation, %R.S.D. = 34) were obtained without correcting the time-shift. Hence, a time-shift correction algorithm to align the peaks was needed to obtain accurate predictions. MCR-ALS was the most robust to the time-shift. All three algorithms provided similar mean predictions, which were comparable to those obtained when sulfite was added to the samples. However, the predictions for the different replicates were more similar for the second-order algorithms (%R.S.D. = 3) than the ones obtained by univariate calibration after the sulfite addition (%R.S.D. = 13).

[1]  F. Rius,et al.  Second-order bilinear calibration for determining polycyclic aromatic compounds in marine sediments by solvent extraction and liquid chromatography with diode-array detection , 2003 .

[2]  F. Borrull,et al.  Chemical removal of humic substances interfering with the on-line solid-phase extraction—Liquid chromatographic determination of polar water pollutants , 1998 .

[3]  Bruce R. Kowalski,et al.  Standardization of Second-Order Chromatographic/Spectroscopic Data for Optimum Chemical Analysis , 1998 .

[4]  V. R. Meyer Errors in the Area Determination of Incompletely Resolved Chromatographic Peaks , 1995 .

[5]  F. Borrull,et al.  Determination of eleven priority EPA phenolics at ng L−1 levels by on-line solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography with UV and electrochemical detection , 1998 .

[6]  R. Bro PARAFAC. Tutorial and applications , 1997 .

[7]  D. Barceló,et al.  Comparison of different sorbent materials for on-line liquid-solid extraction followed by liquid chromatographic determination of priority phenolic compounds in environmental waters , 1996 .

[8]  Karl S. Booksh,et al.  Selecting significant factors by the noise addition method in principal component analysis , 2001 .

[9]  S. Jurt,et al.  Procedure for the quantification of rider peaks. , 2001, Journal of chromatography. A.

[10]  Bruce R. Kowalski,et al.  Generalized rank annihilation factor analysis , 1986 .

[11]  Yang Li,et al.  Determination of the number of components in mixtures using a new approach incorporating chemical information , 1999 .

[12]  R. Tauler Multivariate curve resolution applied to second order data , 1995 .

[13]  Differential signal detection system for improved analysis of overlapping signals in liquid chromatography. , 1999, Journal of chromatography. A.

[14]  A Pappa-Louisi,et al.  On the equations describing chromatographic peaks and the problem of the deconvolution of overlapped peaks. , 2001, Journal of chromatography. A.

[15]  S. Hu,et al.  Artificial neural networks aided deconvolving overlapped peaks in chromatograms. , 1996, Journal of chromatography. A.

[16]  R. Boqué,et al.  Iteratively reweighted generalized rank annihilation method 2. Least squares property and variance expressions , 2001 .

[17]  Nicolaas M. Faber,et al.  Iteratively reweighted generalized rank annihilation method: 1. Improved handling of prediction bias , 2001 .

[18]  Romà Tauler,et al.  Chemometrics applied to unravel multicomponent processes and mixtures: Revisiting latest trends in multivariate resolution , 2003 .

[19]  Zonghai Chen,et al.  Resolution of multicomponent overlapping chromatogram using an immune algorithm and genetic algorithm , 2000 .

[20]  F. Rius,et al.  Time shift correction in second-order liquid chromatographic data with iterative target transformation factor analysis , 2002 .

[21]  F. Borrull,et al.  Improvement of on-line solid-phase extraction for determining phenolic compounds in water , 1995 .

[22]  V. R. Meyer Quantitation of chromatographic peaks in the 0.1 to 1.0% range , 1995 .

[23]  N. Faber Towards a rehabilitation of the generalized rank annihilation method (GRAM) , 2002, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry.

[24]  Edmund R. Malinowski,et al.  Factor Analysis in Chemistry , 1980 .

[25]  Ben C. Mitchell,et al.  An empirical comparison of resolution methods for three-way arrays , 1993 .

[26]  Rasmus Bro,et al.  Recent developments in CANDECOMP/PARAFAC algorithms: a critical review , 2003 .

[27]  R. Bro Multivariate calibration: What is in chemometrics for the analytical chemist? , 2003 .

[28]  R. Bro,et al.  A new efficient method for determining the number of components in PARAFAC models , 2003 .

[29]  F. Rius,et al.  Using second-order calibration to identify and quantify aromatic sulfonates in water by high-performance liquid chromatography in the presence of coeluting interferences. , 2003, Journal of chromatography. A.