Reviews on recent trends in chromatography/mass spectrometry coupling. Part IV. Reasons why supercritical fluid chromatography is not so easily coupled with mass spectrometry as originally assessed

Summary When SFC was rediscovered in the early 1980s, it was frequently estimated that a strong driving force to its development would be the ease of devising a simple SFC/MS interface. This was believed to be easily achieved if analytical conditions were limited to capillary SFC columns as a general separation tool, and to the choice of neat CO₂ as the unique supercritical fluid. The low flow rate of mobile phase delivered by capillary columns was easy to accommodate by the vacuum equipment of standard mass spectrometers, and the specific physical properties of CO₂ made possible solute ionization by different ion-molecule reactions, especially charge exchange ionization. This approach has lived up to all of its promises. The major causes of the observed mismatch are the large variations of the MS source pressure as a result of the CO₂ pressure gradient at the SFC column inlet, the low sensitivity of charge exchange ionization at these high MS source pressures, and the inability to handle polar and nonvolatile molecules. Adaptation of LC/MS interfaces, such as the thermospray interface or the particle beam interface, to SFC/MS conditions was a step forward, but these devices have their own limitations. Alternative methods to direct SFC/MS coupling have been investigated recently. They are based on the use of packed columns rather than capillaries, and on solute ionization at atmospheric pressure rather than under a vacuum, by means of either gas-phase corona discharge ionization or liquidphase electrospray ionization. These new developments may revive research into the design of reproducible and sensitive SFC/MS systems where the number of recent studies is still low compared with other chromatography/mass spectrometry coupling studies.See [1] for part III