Rajendra, your concern is not logical. You can use that column with just about any HPLC system you like. The applicability of YOUR method is what matters, not the trademark on your HPLC system. An HPLC "Method" includes a column type and the conditions in which it is run for the analysis. That would determine if any HPLC system used was appropriate for the analysis. This is true of any column. BTW: Journals will publish just about anything and it would be your responsibility as an author to have the needed training to make sure your method and procedures are appropriate.

Yes, you can use that column on the UHPLC system. Follow the flow rate parameters for that column.

What sort of method development? Scale-up to preparative HPLC? Will you use this column for your analytical measurements?

"UPLC" is a trademark of Waters, not a type of column. Question: Is the " XBridge C18" column with 3.5 u particles appropriate for your analysis method? That is the most important question to ask. It's dimensions should not present a problem.

*BTW: Column types are initially chosen by type, then by dimensions, for use with a specific HPLC method, not an HPLC system. A column such as your ( with ~740 ul volume) should be well suited for use in your Waters Acquity system or any modern research grade HPLC system.

• If you would like to learn more about why marketing trade names such as "UHPLC" and "UPLC" should not be used by scientists to describe the existing technique of HPLC, please refer to this linked article: "Terminology. Which is it? UPLC, UHPLC or HPLC? The correct name is still HPLC."; https://hplctips.blogspot.com/2015/08/terminiology-which-is-it-uplc-uhplc-or.html

Jack Silver Yes, I will use it for analytical purposes. My concern was will this column with a UPLC system acceptable for publications?

Rajendra, your concern is not logical. You can use that column with just about any HPLC system you like. The applicability of YOUR method is what matters, not the trademark on your HPLC system. An HPLC "Method" includes a column type and the conditions in which it is run for the analysis. That would determine if any HPLC system used was appropriate for the analysis. This is true of any column. BTW: Journals will publish just about anything and it would be your responsibility as an author to have the needed training to make sure your method and procedures are appropriate.

Rajendra,

Just follow ICH Q2 guidelines on analytical method validation. You should have no issues.

@William Letter correction: poor journals will publish just about anything. Reputable journals' reviewers rarely allow poor methods to slip through. Also, I would argue that if he is using a UPLC column from Waters then he can call it a UPLC column since that it what it is called. Like if im taking Levaquin, I am not expected to say im taking Levofloxacin. Furthermore, that takes focus off the actual question at hand.

Rajendra Panda The flow rates for that column are within the range that instrument can deliver. You will need to determine if the analytical method you use is suitable. It needs to provide reproducible results, applicable over the range of analyte concentrations you expect to see, and unaffected by potentially interfering compounds. As William Letter said, the brand names aren't important. I suspect many papers use analytical columns chosen due to availability in the lab which produced acceptable results. I don't know the history of your column, but I've occasionally found "inherited" columns to have been abused such that they produce different results compared to a new column.

Adam: I would not use the word "poor" to describe just the "fake" journals that publish questionable articles as several of the most widely used professional journals have published plenty of invalid articles. If you could see the number of poor quality papers that come across my desk each week from "recognized organizations" across the world, you might be shocked. As a past reviewer for several journals, I can say from personal experience that even when one or more reviewers explains (and provides proof) to the journal editor(s) that an article is unscientific and the authors have no knowledge or basic understanding of what they are doing, some editors go ahead and publish them anyway (so the publisher can collect their fees). The proof of course is in simply reviewing published articles. It is a sad fact that 'Science' sometimes takes a "back-seat" to commerce.

• Adam wrote: " if he is using a UPLC column from Waters then he can call it a UPLC column";

I never contradicted such a statement. "UPLC" is a trademark and could certainly be included in the Materials & Methods section of the article for the column. But this has nothing to do with the question or response. Terminology is important. . The issue is with a misunderstanding of what these terms mean and how they are not relevant to the real question/problem, which is a lack of understanding in how HPLC methods relate to HPLC instruments. Rajendra's post indicates that they do not understand what these terms mean and how they are relevant to HPLC in general. As such, information has been provided to show their actual relevance.

I agree. The business is getting more and more creative, such as baiting a scientist into a no-fee journal just to ultimately shunt their article to a fee- based sister journal. The entire publisher business exploits reviewers, especially those who believe serving will help them get tenure. Money in publishers' pockets from all parties involved, but nowadays with everything being online the cost to a publisher should be very little. It also saddens me that shock value research is still appreciated more than improved methodology in reproducibility studies.

Jack Silver Thank you very much for the reply. I have optimized the flow rate parameter and started working on it. Thankfully the method is reproducible.The column I am working on Is definitely not new but it is giving excellent response for method development and validation.