. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jan 7.

Published in final edited form as: J Chromatogr A. 2010 Oct 31;1218(1):64–73. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.10.096

Table 4.

Case 2: Results for Optimization of Mixture C^a

¹t_g	¹L	¹F	¹ φ _o	¹ φ _fin	¹n_c	Δ(¹t)	Δ(¹t)/¹t_g	¹ ϖ	²t_g	β	¹n'_c	²n_c	n^'_c,2D
Method 1 optimization of mixture C¹
5	14.4	0.81	0.00	0.36	101	4.5	0.90	0.045	11.58	10.0	10.1	16	164
12	19.1	0.61	0.00	0.31	131	11.1	0.93	0.085	12.18	5.5	23.6	17	401
24	23.5	0.50	0.00	0.26	157	22.6	0.94	0.144	13.44	3.6	43.4	18	796
49	29.1	0.40	0.00	0.20	187	46.9	0.96	0.252	16.16	2.5	73.8	21	1547
Method 2 optimization of mixture C¹
5	9.2	1.27	0.00	0.20	94	4.8	0.96	0.051	11.65	8.8	10.7	16	175
12	14.3	0.82	0.00	0.20	127	11.5	0.96	0.091	12.28	5.2	24.2	17	414
24	20.2	0.58	0.00	0.20	156	23.0	0.96	0.148	13.52	3.6	43.8	18	806
49	28.9	0.40	0.00	0.20	187	47.0	0.96	0.252	16.16	2.5	73.8	21	1548

The meanings of symbols in Table 4 are the same as those in Table 3.

Mixture C has the least retained solute which elutes close to or slightly later than ¹t_o given ¹φ_o=0.0.