Previously, I have posted on a normal-phase flash chromatography method to separate and isolate CBG from a CBD-rich hemp distillate. CBG is just one of many naturally occurring minor cannabinoids of interest in this fast-growing market.
This is a question being asked of my colleagues and me more and more frequently, especially in pharma accounts. Why? Well, you are familiar with the adage – Time is Money, right. Well this really applies to them. A new molecular entity (NME) created as a pharmaceutical can take up to a decade and a billion dollars to bring to market. Granted, the biggest costs are in the clinical trials but the synthetic route and the time to discover and make the compound – and purify it – plays a major role within drug discovery and development. This timeline is not helped by the ever increasingly difficult-to-synthesize compounds being investigated as drug candidates today.
With that in mind, this post focuses on ways to speed the purification process without sacrificing purity and yield.
Recently, one of our readers wrote and asked how to determine solvent strength in normal-phase flash chromatography. This is an excellent question because solvent strength is one of several factors impacting flash chromatography performance.
In this post I will explain how solvent strength can easily be determined.
Cannabis entrepreneurs continually seek to differentiate themselves from others in the market. Some focus on THC while others focus on CBD. What I have seen recently after attending some cannabis-specific conferences is a growing interest in isolating/purifying some of the minor, naturally occurring phytocannabinoids such as CBG and CBDV.
Varying the concentrations of mobile phase solvents during flash purification chromatography enhances the ability of the technique to effectively isolate the desired compound from reaction by-products and unconsumed reagents. Choosing how these concentrations will be varied over time has a significant effect on the purity and recovery of desired compounds.
Equilibrating silica flash chromatography columns is something I always do. There are chemists who see this as an unnecessary, time-and-solvent-wasting step. However, because getting consistent, predictable results is a priority for me, I equilibrate to remove the variability that can be caused by heat generated as solvent initially contacts the silica. Consistency is really important when running flash column chromatography because re-runs are time consuming and may put your compound at risk.
Reversed-phase flash chromatography usage is increasing rapidly. In fact, over the past 10 or so years, reversed-phase flash chromatography use has increased a dramatic 650%! This is amazing growth despite the fact that reversed-phase flash columns are considerably more expensive than silica columns and you need to evaporate water from your fractions. So, what’s driving this change in chemists’ modus operandi?
In this post, I will explain why chemists are increasingly using reversed-phase flash chromatography for routine, intermediate, and final compound purification and provide and example as well.
Most flash column manufacturers now offer “high performance” flash chromatography columns with the promise of higher loading, increased purity, and even reduced solvent consumption. Working for Biotage, I have made those valid claims for our products as well.
UV detection and fractionation is ubiquitous in flash chromatography. It is the default methodology used to detect and collect eluting compounds. Today’s flash chromatography systems offer UV-triggered fractionation on one, two, or a range of wavelengths in order to either increase fractionation specificity, yield, or increase sensitivity.