Analytical Quality by Design Based Method Development for the Analysis of Dexamethasone Phosphate and Related Compounds Using Arc Premier MaxPeak High Performance Surfaces (HPS) Technology

Importance of the Topic

The interaction of phosphorylated and metal‐chelating analytes with stainless‐steel surfaces often leads to peak tailing, analyte loss, and quantitative inaccuracies in liquid chromatography. Developing surface‐treated systems to minimize these interactions is crucial for high‐performance, reproducible analyses of metal‐sensitive pharmaceutical compounds.

Objectives and Study Overview

This work applied an Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) approach to develop an ultra‐high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) method for the separation of two phosphorylated corticosteroids and three related substances. The study compared Waters’ Arc Premier System equipped with MaxPeak High Performance Surfaces (HPS) technology against a standard stainless‐steel UHPLC setup. DryLab4 and Empower 3 software were used to automate experimental design, peak tracking, resolution mapping, and robustness assessment.

Methodology and Instrumentation

Key steps included risk assessment, design of experiments (DoE), peak tracking, resolution modelling, and robustness evaluation under AQbD principles. The final method was established within the Method Operable Design Region (MODR).

• LC System: Arc Premier with Quaternary Solvent Manager, Sample Manager, Column Manager, PDA and QDa mass detectors.
• Column: MaxPeak Premier BEH C18, 10 cm × 4.6 mm, 2.5 µm.
• Mobile Phase: 10 mM ammonium formate in water (A) and 0.1 % formic acid in acetonitrile (B), linear gradient 10–90 % B over 15 min.
• Flow Rate & Temperature: 0.50 mL/min; column at 35 °C; sample at 10 °C.
• Detection: UV at 254 nm and ESI+ MS (100–500 Da).
• Software: Empower 3 CDS and DryLab4.

Main Results and Discussion

Comparative DoE runs demonstrated significantly improved peak shapes and areas on the Arc Premier HPS system versus stainless‐steel. Resolution maps identified a robust region achieving critical pair resolution ≥2.1 with USP tailing ≤1.2. Robustness assessment predicted 100 % method success within instrument tolerances, corroborated by verification injections showing retention time and area %RSD ≤0.5 % and consistent resolution.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• Mitigates metal‐analyte interactions to deliver sharp, symmetric peaks.
• Automates method development via DryLab‐Empower integration, reducing experimental runs to 12.
• Defines a regulatory‐friendly design space, allowing controlled method adjustments without revalidation.
• Supports MS compatibility for compound identification.

Future Trends and Opportunities

The integration of high‐performance surfaces with AQbD software promises broader application to other metal‐sensitive analytes. Future developments may include expanded solvent compatibility, further miniaturization, and real‐time design‐space monitoring to accelerate regulatory approvals and analytical flexibility.

Conclusion

By combining MaxPeak HPS technology with AQbD‐driven automation, the developed UHPLC method offers superior separations, reproducibility, and regulatory adaptability for phosphorylated pharmaceutical analysis. This workflow exemplifies efficient, robust method development to meet modern analytical demands.

References

1. Cogan S.F., Jones G.S., Hills D.V., Walter J.S., Riedy L.W. Comparison of 316LVM and MP35N Alloys as Charge Injection Electrodes. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 28(2):233–240 (1994).
2. Lauber M., DeLano M., Boissel C., Gilar M., Smith K., Birdsall R., Rainville P., Belanger J., Wyndham K. Low Adsorption UPLC Columns Based on MaxPeak High Performance Surfaces. Waters Corp. (2020).
3. Collins K.E., Collins C.H., Bertran C.A. Stainless‐steel Surfaces in LC Systems, Part II: Passivation and Practical Recommendations. LCGC North Am. 18(7):688–692 (2000).
4. Heaton J.C., McCalley D.V. Factors Leading to Poor Peak Shape in HILIC and Remediation. J. Chromatogr. A. 1427:37–44 (2016).
5. Myint K.T., Uehara T., Aoshima K., Oda Y. Polar Anionic Metabolome Analysis by Nano‐LC‐MS with Chelator. Anal. Chem. 81(18):7766–7772 (2009).
6. Winter D., Seidler J., Ziv Y., Shiloh Y., Lehmann W.D. Citrate Boosts Phosphopeptide Analysis by UPLC‐ESI‐MS/MS. J. Proteome Res. 8(1):418–424 (2009).
7. Siegel D., Permentier H., Bischoff R. Controlling Metal Cation Effects in UHPLC‐MS/MS with Volatile Modifiers. J. Chromatogr. A. 1294:87–97 (2013).
8. Anspach J.A.R., Rivera S. PEEK Tubing Limitations in UHPLC. LCGC 36:24–29 (2018).
9. Lough W.J., Mills M.J., Maltas J. Analyte Adsorption in LC Valve Injectors for Non-Eluting Solvents. J. Chromatogr. A. 726(1-2):67–75 (1996).
10. Hambleton P., Lough W.J., Maltas J., Mills M.J. Unusual Analyte Adsorption Effects on Inert LC Components. J. Liq. Chromatogr. Relat. Technol. 18(16):3205–3217 (1995).
11. Peraman R., Bhadraya K., Padmanabha Reddy Y. Analytical Quality by Design: Regulatory Flexibility and Robust Analytics. Int. J. Anal. Chem. 2015:Article ID 918635 (2015).
12. Reid G.L., Morgado J., Barnett K., Harrington B., Wang J., Harwood J., Fortin D. Analytical Quality by Design in Pharmaceutical Development. Am. Pharm. Rev. 16(4):144–151 (2013).
13. Fekete S., Molnár I. Software-Assisted Method Development in HPLC. World Scientific (2018).
14. Tome T., Žigart N., Časar Z., Obreza A. LC Method Development Using AQbD: Advances and Overview. Org. Process Res. Dev. 23(9):1784–1802 (2019).
15. Nikunj Tanna R.S.P., Mullin L. Sensitivity Improvements for Steroid Phosphate Quantification Using Premier LC and MaxPeak HPS. Waters App. Note 720007095 (2021).