On the contribution of the top and bottom walls in micro-pillar array columns and related high-aspect ratio chromatography systems

We report on a steady-state based, and hence highly accurate numerical modelling study of the effect of the top and bottom wall in the current generation of micro-pillar array columns. These have a mesoporous retention layer that not only covers the pillar walls but also the bottom wall. Our results show that the performance of these columns can in general not be improved by also covering the top wall with the same layer, despite the increased column symmetry this approach would offer. The reason for this is that the local species retardation caused by a retentive layer is much stronger than the pure flow arresting effect of an uncovered wall. At least, this has a crucial impact in high aspect-ratio systems such as micro-pillar array columns because these require a small inter-pillar distance to promote mass transfer together with a large channel depth to enable a sufficiently high flow rate. On the other hand, a notable improvement could be made if micro-pillar array would be produced without having a retentive layer at the bottom. At Péclet number Pe = 50 and aspect ratio AR = 5 for flow-channels, this gain amounts up to about 4.5 h-units at a zone retention factor k’’ = 2 and 1.75 h-units at k’’ = 16 (gain scales almost linearly with Pe).To verify these results, we also considered another high aspect-ratio system with a simplified geometry: the open-tubular channel with a flat-rectangular cross-section. This led to very similar observations, thus confirming the findings for the micro-pillar array.The results produced in the present study also allow us to conclude that the classic modelling paradigm adopted in chromatography, which is based on the independency and hence additivity of the hCm- and hCs-contributions, can lead to large modelling errors in chromatographic systems with a high aspect-ratio, even when their geometry is so simple as that of a straight open-tubular channel with constant cross-section. Indeed, when both zones are treated independently, the analysis misses how the vertical diffusion through the retentive layer helps suppressing the vertical gradients in the mobile zone. The diffusion through this layer occurs in a ratio of k’’Ds/Dm (Dm being the diffusion coefficient in mobile phase zone and Ds being the diffusion coefficient in stationary phase zone), such that at high retention factors this diffusion contribution even becomes the dominant one.