Evidence Hub

Combined chiral-achiral supercritical fluid chromatography method for the impurity analysis of dapoxetine reveals insights in entropy-driven retention and acid-modulated selectivity

Louis Schmidt, Jana Lemke, Phillip Schmiady, Tobias Keydel, L. Schulig, Andreas Link, Ulrike Garscha

Journal of Chromatography A, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Chiral analysis is an essential part of the development and quality control of enantiopure pharmaceuticals. Supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) emerged as a powerful tool for the chiral separation of drugs, however, its implementation in the pharmacopoeia remains limited. In this study, we developed a rapid SFC-UV method for the impurity control of S -dapoxetine, enabling simultaneous chiral and achiral analysis in less than 20 min. The method was validated according to ICH Q2(R2) guidelines and demonstrated sufficient sensitivity, precision and accuracy down to 2.5 µg mL -1 . A binary acid–base additive mixture was used to modify chemo- and stereoselectivity, achieving baseline separation of all relevant analytes. During method development, an unusual retention behaviour of basic analytes was observed, leading to a thermodynamic investigations using the Van ’t Hoff analysis. This revealed a rare case of entropy-driven retention, with strong acidic additives like trifluoroacetic acid leveraging the effect for basic analytes. Further investigations involving 15 diverse chiral amines, as well as molecular dynamic simulations, showed that isopropanol stabilises the helical amylose backbone by reducing excessive flexibility, thereby increasing the enantioselective separation efficiency. Additionally, strong acids were found to form transient ion-pairs with basic analytes, which are favoured in the supercritical environment. The neutral complexes impact retention depending…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free