Inter-instrumental method transfer of chiral capillary electrophoretic methods using robustness test information

Interinstrumental method transfer of a capillary electrophoretic separation of angiotensin II and five derivatives: Evaluation and update of earlier developed guidelines

“…An acceptable repeatability of MT and area under the curve (AUC) of all compounds is a necessity prior to AMT. When needed optimization, using for example different rinse steps, altering injection volumes, avoiding Joule heating, and application of a constant current, is advised to improve it . The repeatability of the method developed on the Beckman instrument was assessed and good results were obtained for the MT (RSD below 1.5%) and AUC (RSD below 5%) of the peptides, as can be observed in Table .…”

“…The guidelines from earlier studies , such as the application and adjustment of a constant current (45.5 to 44.1 μA) to obtain an identical current per centimeter total capillary length (= 0.91 μA/cm capillary), adaptation of the injection pressure (0.500 to 0.485 psi and 60 to 58.2 psi) to guarantee identical sample injection (= 26.71 nL) and rinse volumes (= 576.9 μL), were applied during the initial transfer to the Agilent CE system in the same laboratory. Despite previous successful results during an interinstrumental transfer of small chiral drug molecules , the guidelines used during the AMT of this method did not enable to maintain the baseline separation between the critical pair, ANG 3–7 and ANG 4–8.…”

Interinstrumental transfer of a fast short‐end injection capillary electrophoresis method: Application to the separation of niobium, tantalum, and their substituted ions

“…A successful AMT guarantees that the receiving laboratory/instrument is able to obtain similar results, with preferably a similar experimental error/variation, compared with the developing laboratory/instrument. Cornerstones for a successful AMT are well‐designed pretransfer studies, such as robustness tests and precision studies . The AMT of CE methods is more complex than that of HPLC methods due to several reasons, such as the lower precision and robustness of CE methods and instruments, the lack of uniformity between CE instruments and the greater impact of instrumental settings on the CE separation.…”

“…The AMT of CE methods is more complex than that of HPLC methods due to several reasons, such as the lower precision and robustness of CE methods and instruments, the lack of uniformity between CE instruments and the greater impact of instrumental settings on the CE separation. Guidelines, based on performed robustness test and precision optimization studies, concerning the interinstrumental method transfer of CE methods, were developed earlier in our laboratory to improve the achievement of similar results and to overcome instrumental differences and detector‐ and data‐handling settings differences . In the actual study, an interinstrumental transfer of a particular CE application, namely a short‐end injection (SEI) method, was used as test case to develop specific guidelines needed during AMT of fast SEI CE methods.…”

“…The instrumental difference between the effective lengths of an SEI on the Beckman and Agilent instruments is due to the difference in construction of the capillary cartridges. On the Beckman instrument, the short‐end effective length is 10 cm and is not thermostated, while on the Agilent instrument the minimum effective length is 8.5 cm, of which a part, that is, 3.5 of 8.5 cm, is thermostated . In this study an interinstrumental AMT from a Beckman system to an Agilent instrument was performed to analyze this interinstrumental difference.…”