 John V. Hinshaw
|
Computerized pneumatic control systems abound in modern gas chromatographs for carrier gas, split flow control, and detector
gases, as well as more esoteric headspace samplers or column-switching systems. Accuracy and repeatability are superior to
manually adjusted pneumatics, and better control of instrument parameters through more inclusive computerized controls greatly
reduces the possibility for making gas-related mistakes while setting up and using a gas chromatograph. Like any computer
system, however, the results are only as good as the data that are entered; a good working understanding of how the system
works and what goals are to be accomplished is essential to successfully using computerized pneumatics.
First, let us clear up some terminology. Gas chromatography (GC) instrument manufacturers refer to computerized pneumatic
systems in a variety of ways, including electronic pneumatics control or electronic pressure control (EPC), programmable pneumatic
control (PPC), advanced flow control (AFC), digital pressure and flow control (DPFC), detector gas flow control (DGFC), and
electronic flow control (EFC). Each of the manufacturers' variations has some unique modes and capabilities; many have advanced
to a second or third generation since they were first offered. It is beyond the scope of this article to enumerate all of
the possibilities. The reader is encouraged to explore companies' literature and documentation to learn specific details.
Here, we will focus on the general functionality and utility of computerized pneumatics with the aim of describing the major
operating principles and modes common to many of these systems.
Development
Computerized pneumatics excel at maintaining constant pneumatic conditions such as column pressure drop or detector gas flow
rates, in addition to relieving the operator from having to make painstaking adjustments when setting up GC running conditions.
One of the more interesting further possibilities is the modification of pressures, flows, or carrier gas velocities during
chromatography. Such pressure and flow programming were the subject of some attention by GC researchers starting in the late
1950s in the form of step changes in the column pressure drop as well as continuous variation of the column flow or pressure
drop during a GC analysis. At that time, researchers perceived pressure –flow programming as an alternative or adjunct method
to column oven temperature programming for extending the molecular-weight range of GC analyses and decreasing analysis times.
Among several reasons, pressure –flow programming was attractive because it reduced the temperatures required for peak elution
with early stationary phases that were not particularly thermally stable. The literature from that time discusses the relative merits of various positive or negative, linear, exponential, or hyperbolic
pressure and flow profiles applied over the course of a GC separation on both packed as well as open-tubular columns. The
mechanical pneumatic controllers of the time were crude by today's standards, but they contained the necessary elements for
automated pneumatic control: a valve or other controller and the mechanical means to change its operation during a GC analysis.
Later controllers began to supplant mechanical controls and added feedback using simple operational amplifiers and pressure
or flow sensors.
As GC liquid-phase maximum temperatures increased — permitting higher and higher oven temperature program limits — efforts
in pressure–flow programming essentially ceased. From the mid 1970s on, little work was done in this area. Most analysts operated
their open-tubular columns under isobaric (constant pressure) conditions using mechanical pressure regulators and their packed
columns under isoheric (constant flow) conditions using mechanical constant mass-flow controllers. During this period electronic
constant-flow controllers crossed over from the semiconductor industry and were produced specifically for GC requirements,
but they were relatively expensive compared with simpler mechanical devices.
Computer control: In the1980s, microprocessors migrated into GC instruments as instrument designers established digital control of temperatures
and other parameters. Computerized digital pressure–flow control was a natural extension of these capabilities. In early implementations,
the microprocessor controlled only the pneumatic setpoints. The operator entered a flow rate, for example, and the microprocessor
sent the setpoint to the controller digitally. The actual control of flow occurred in the pneumatic device itself using analog
circuitry. The controller reported the measured flow rate back to the microprocessor through another digital channel, and
the microprocessor reported the measured flows to the instrument display. However, these systems did not have extensive pressure
or flow programming capability.