Molecular Forces All intermolecular forces are electrical in nature. The three different types are termed dispersion forces, polar forces and ionic forces. All interactions between molecules are composites of these three forces. Dispersion Forces Dispersion forces were first described by London (3), and for this reason were originally called 'London's dispersion forces'. London's name has now been dropped and they are now simply referred to as 'dispersion' forces. They arise from charge fluctuations throughout a molecule resulting from electron/nuclei vibrations.   Glasstone (4) suggested that dispersion forces could be best described as follows,   "although the

offer electrical interactions with another molecule, resulting in interactive forces". London (3) was the first to describe dispersion forces, which were consequently termed 'London's dispersion forces'. Unfortunately, over the years, London's name has been dropped and the simpler term 'dispersion' forces is now used. Dispersion forces are ubiquitous and must arise in all molecular interactions. They can, themselves, occur in isolation, but are always present even when other types of interaction dominate. An example of interactions that are exclusively dispersive are those between hydrocarbons. The lower molecular weight hydrocarbons (hexane, heptane, octane etc.) are liquids and not gasses due entirely to the dispersion forces that act between the hydrocarbon molecules. Dispersive interactions are sometimes referred to as 'hydrophobic' or 'lyophobic' interactions, particularly in the fields of biotechnology and biochemistry. These terms appear to have arisen because

. A large sample is often necessary in trace analysis to provide sufficient material for detection. Under such circumstances the column may be overloaded giving a very broad asymmetric peak which may obscure the trace materials of interest. This asymmetric dispersion is due to solute-solute interaction in the mobile and stationary phases causing a nonlinear adsorption isotherm. The subject of adsorption isotherms will not be discussed here and it is sufficient to say that the asymmetric dispersion can be reduced by increasing the stationary phase in the column.. A larger amount of stationary phase, will, even with a larger charge, reduce the sample concentration in the stationary phase and thus the deleterious high sample concentrations are never reached

constraining their dispersion so that they are eluted discretely. To move the peaks apart each solute must be retained to a different extent, which (as shown by the plate theory, book 6) means that their distribution coefficients must differ or they must interact with different volumes of stationary phase. Retention is therefore controlled by regulating the magnitude of the distribution coefficient or modifying the quantity of stationary phase available to each solute. The former is employed in interaction chromatography and the latter in exclusion chromatography. In practice, it is rare that either procedure is exclusive in any given separation as both retentive processes are usually present to some extent, particularly in liquid chromatography (LC). Retention in gas chromatography (GC), using coated open tubes, is, perhaps, the exception, as, in this distribution system, exclusion processes (aside from chiral phases) are normally absent and, consequently, retention control is purely

with the benzene. In fact, as a result of solute–solute interaction the benzene is, in effect, partially eluting itself. The effect of the mass overload of benzene on the other solutes is also clearly demonstrated. The presence of the high concentration of benzene in the mobile phase increases the elution rate of both the naphthalene and the anthracene. Its also seen, however, that the effect of the high concentration of the benzene on the closer eluting peak naphthalene is to produce band dispersion, whereas the anthracene band does not suffer significant dispersion and the retention of both the front and the rear of the anthracene peak appear to be linearly reduced with sample mass. The  chromatograms shown in figure 7 also show that the anthracene peak maintains its symmetry throughout all sample sizes. The impact of the high concentration of benzene on the elution of the other solutes only occurs while the solutes are still in contact with one another at the beginning of the

of GC there has been a continuous interaction between improved detector performance and improved column performance. Initially, separations monitored by detectors with improved sensitivity permitted a precise column theory to be developed and experimentally substantiated. This allowed new columns to be designed with reduced dispersion and higher efficiencies. The improved efficiencies, however, produced small volume peaks, small, that is, compared with the volume of the detector sensor and the dispersion that took place in the conduits of the detector system.. As a consequence, the ultimate efficiency obtainable from the column was determined by the geometry of the fluid conduits of the detector and not its sensitivity. This provoked detector redesign, with smaller sensor volumes, different geometry and shorter connecting tubes between the column and sensor. In turn, these modifications allowed much smaller particles to be used in the column resulting in even lower column dispersion