Influence of different hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography stationary phases on method performance for the determination of highly polar anionic pesticides in complex feed matrices

• Published in: Journal of separation science Vol. 44; no. 11; pp. 2165 - 2176
• Main Authors: Dias, Jonatan, López, Sonia Herrera, Mol, Hans, Kok, André
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Germany Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.06.2021; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Chromatography; glyphosate; hydrophilic interaction chromatography; Hydrophilicity; isotopically labeled standards; Liquid Chromatography; Metabolites; Pesticides; polar pesticides; hydrophilic interaction chromatography; polar pesticides; isotopically labeled standards; glyphosate
• ISSN: 1615-9306; 1615-9314
• DOI: 10.1002/jssc.202001134

Hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography is an alternative liquid chromatography mode for separation of polar compounds. In the recent years, this liquid chromatography mode has been recognized as an important solution for the analysis of compounds not amenable to reverse phase chromatography. In this work, we evaluated three different hydrophilic liquid chromatography stationary phases for the determination of 14 highly polar anionic molecules including pesticides such as glyphosate, glufosinate, ethephon and fosetyl, their main metabolites, and bromide, chlorate, and perchlorate. Several mobile phase compositions were evaluated combined with different gradients for the chromatographic run. The two columns that presented the best results were used to assess the performance for the determination of the 14 compounds in challenging highly complex feed materials. Very different matrix effects were observed for most of the compounds in each column, suggesting that different interactions can occur. Using isotopically labeled internal standards, acceptable quantitative performance and identification could be achieved down to 0.02 mg kg−1 (the lowest level tested) for most compounds. While one column was found to be favorable in terms of scope (suited for all 14 compounds), the other one was more suited for quantification and identification at lower levels, however, not for all analytes tested.