Table 1 Difference between particulate and monolithic column
From: Advances in monolithic silica columns for high-performance liquid chromatography
S.No. | Particulate column | Monolithic column | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics of the column | |||
| Â | Inter-particle void volume determines the permeability and column back pressure | Macropore determines the permeability and column back pressure | (Cabrera, 2004) |
|  | Inter-particle volume depends on particle size Dia < 3 μm (small permeability) Dia > 11 μm (large permeability) | Macropore size determines the particle performance | (Cabrera, 2004) |
| Â | Plate number (N) is inversely proportional to particle diameter | Plate number (N) is directly proportional to particle diameter | (Cabrera, 2004) |
| Â | Performance and permeability cannot be controlled independently by particle packed column | Performance and permeability can be controlled independently by controlling over macropore and mesopore size | (Cabrera, 2004) |
Column performance | |||
 Flow rate | Lesser | Higher | (Cabrera, 2004) |
 Back pressure | Higher | Lesser | (Cabrera, 2004) |
 Porosity | Lesser | Higher | (Cabrera, 2004) |
 Run time | Higher | Lesser | (Cabrera, 2004) |
 Efficiency (HETP, plate height) | Lesser | Higher | (Cabrera, 2004) |
Precision and reproducibility | |||
 Retention time | Higher | Lesser | (Deeb, Preu, and Wätzig, 2007), 90 |
 Resolution factor | Lesser | Higher | (Deeb et al. 2007), 91 |
 Tailing factor | Higher | Lesser | (Deeb et al. 2007) |
Structure | |||
 Frit | Present | Absent |  |
 Sample and mobile phase usage | More required | Less required |  |
 Absorption and separation capacity | Lesser | 30–40% higher capacity | (K. Nakanishi et al. 1998) |
 Surface area | Lesser | Larger | (K. Nakanishi et al. 1998) |
 Loadability | Less | More |  |