Guiochon published a letter in J.Chromatography 852(1999) p603 where he attacked the idea of establishing a reference column for reversed phase separations. In addition to the obvious concern of where bureaucrats might force the use(misuse) of such a column, he was concerned that there was no scientific debate on the matter.

He makes a strong case that this effort is a bad idea with potentially far reaching adverse consequences for persons doing liquid chromatography. What can be done to prevent such a column from being forced upon us?

There is not much to add to the fact, that the standard column idea is an absolute nonsense, however nice the regulatory arguments might be.

Well, all of us know that it is sometimes difficult ( though not so diffucult nowadays ) to obtain two more or less identical columns even from different batches not speaking about "identical" silicas from different manufacturers.

There are perhaps a few moves to be done to overcome this serious threat from people, who call the C18 reverse phase "silica, octadecylsilanized R".

First, try to explain the facts to everybody who can influence the resolution and ask "Please, don't!".

Second. Ignore the resolution if they do. Anybody can use his own method, provided the method is sufficiently validated. And we do not use non-validated methods, do we?

p.s. What it is - macrogolum for gas chromatophary R? Well, pharmacopoeial Carbowax.