You are on page 1of 6

The Predawn of PaperChromatography

2001, 54 4 0 9 - 4 1 4

L.S. Ettre
Department of Chemical Engineering,Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA l)

Key Words
History of chromatography
Paper chromatography
F.F.Runge's pattern figures
Capillary analysis

The activities of F.F.Runge, F.GoppeJsroeder and R.E.Liesegang are outlined. The technique of
capillary analysis is described and its shortcomings elaborated. Tswett's use of filter paper to
imitate plant tissues is explained and finally, the considerations of Izmailov and Shraiber eventually leading to thin-layer chromatography are summarized.

Today, paper chromatography is almost
completely superseded by thin-layer chromatography (TLC). However, the two are
closely related. TLC was a logical extension of paper chromatography, providing
the possibility for the use of different adsorbents as the stationary phase, with increased sample size, while maintaining the
simplicity of the technique.
Paper chromatography occupies a very
important place in the evolution of the
chromatographic techniques: through it
chromatography became everybody's
tool, and it revolutionized the way biochemical investigations were carried out.
As pointed out by W.J. Whelan, professor

1) Mailing address: P.O. Box 6274, Bridgeport,

CT 06606, USA

"The technological advance represented (by paper chromatography) was

astonishing. Amino acids ... could now
be separated in microgram amounts
and visualized. . . . (Paper chromatography) would allow one within the
space of one week to carry out first a
test for homogeneity and then a structural analysis of an oligosaccharide,
which until then could very well have
occupied the three years of a Ph.D. dissertation using (classical methods)."
It is important to investigate the beginnings of paper chromatography because
of its significance in the evolution of the
chromatographic techniques.
Chromatographia 2001, 54, September (No. 5/6)

Historical Paper

emeritus at the University of Miami

School of Medicine (Miami, FL, USA),
who in 1945-1948 was a graduate student
in England [1],

R.L.M. Synge, the co-inventor of partition chromatography in 1941, for which

achievement he received together with
A.J.P. Martin the 1952 Chemistry Nobel
Prize, wrote some time ago a little known
short paper entitled "How the Robinsons
Nearly Invented Partition Chromatography in 1934" [2]. In it he was referred to an
experiment of Robert Robinson at Oxford
University in which he tried to use a 20-ft
long surgical bandage, hung vertically in
one of the staircases, in the fashion paper
chromatography was carried out a decade
later, for the separation of anthocyanins.
The present discussion is similar to
Synge's: none of the works mentioned here
led to the actual development of the technique although each had the potential for it.
Development of paper chromatography is generally credited to A.J.P. Martin
and his group [3]. However, they were not
the first who carried out some kind of manipulation on (filter) paper, and Martin,
in his Nobel Lecture [4], mentions that he
was aware of the use of filter paper by dyestuff chemists to check the quality of the
dyes; in fact, he admits that he followed
their practice. Actually, similar methods
had already been used 1900 years earlier
by the Romans to check the quality of the
dye extracted from the fish sea purple,
used to color the border of their robes [5,
6a]. A similar method was also used to
check for possible adulteration of verdigris (essentially copper acetate), a popular
medication in Rome [5, 6b]. However,
these tests, performed on a piece of papyrus, the paper of the Ancient Ages, cannot be termed as chromatography since
no systematic separation was involved.

409- 06

$ 03.00/0

9 2001 Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH


Figure 2. Spot test of Runge [1 la]. A = dark

spot consisting of the precipitate from a mixture of a tree bark extract and lead acetate solution, surrounded by a turbid ring of the precipitate's suspension; B = clear outer ring consisting either of pure water or excess lead acetate solution; C = pale yellow spot of K2CrO4
solution; D = dark yellow PbCrO4 solution (indicating an excess of the lead acetate reagen0.

Figure 1. A typical picture produced by Runge (No.6 in [13]). It was the result of interaction of solutions of CuSO4, (NH4)H2PO4 and K4Fe(CN)6 on the filter paper.

Runge's Pictures
In the chromatographic literature one
can often find the German physician-chemist Friedlieb Ferdinand Runge (1794
1867) mentioned as the precursor or even
as the "inventor" of paper chromatography [7]. His life story is fascinating and,
on the occasion of the bicentennial of his
birth, it was discussed in detail in this
journal [8]. He had two doctorates, in
medicine and chemistry, but he never
practiced as a physician. Between 1826
and 1832 he was associated with a textile
factory and the university in Breslau (today Wroclaw, Poland) and then in 1832
he joined a chemical factory in Oranienburg, a town just north of Berlin (today a
town in the state of Brandenburg) as an
industrial chemist where he did pioneering work on the investigation of coal tar.
In the last 15 years of his life Runge lived
on a royal pension granted him by the
king of Prussia.
Runge had a lifelong interest in textile
dyeing and in color formation in general.
Between 1834 and 1850 he published three
volumes on Farbenchemie (the chemistry
of color and coloring) [9 11], mainly as
an aid to textile manufacturing. Slowly he
became more and more involved in studying the formation of colored patterns
through reactions on filter paper, and between 1850 and 1866 he published three
books, full of beautiful illustrations in full


color [12 14]. At first glance these look

almost like circular paper chromatograms; however, they have nothing to do
with chromatography.
Runge's aim was to create unique pictures through the mutual action of reagent
solutions spotted on filter paper. In a
book published in 1985, Harsch and Bussemas dealt in detail with Runge's activities, with many illustrations in full color
[15], explaining also the way these pictures
were created. As an example, we want to
mention the preparation of one of his figures (No.6 in [13]). The filter paper was
first impregnated with copper sulfate
[CuSO4] solution and let dry. Next, one
drop of a m m o n i u m dihydrogen phosphate [(NH4)H2PO4] solution was added
to the paper; finally, one drop of potassium ferrocyanide [K4Fe(CN)6.3H20] solution was spotted on the middle of the
colorless phosphate spot and four drops
on the periphery of this spot. The resulting
picture was mostly pink, with rays around
a white center, and blue spots on the outer
ring. Figure 1 provides a copy of Runge's
original multicolored illustration.
However, Runge did not only produced these figures "for the friends of
beauty" as indicated in the title of his
book [12]. He more and more moved toward a philosophical and almost mystical
interpretation, believing that these color
pictures "grew independently," and that
their formation represented a manifestaChromatographia 2001, 54, September (No. 5/6)

tion of a special natural force, which he

then later called the "Od".
While Runge's pictures have nothing
to do with chromatography, they are actually close to the spot tests first devised
in 1859 by H u g o Schiff and then elaborated in details from 1918 on by Fritz
Feigl (1891 1970), first at the University
of Vienna and, from 1940 on, in Brazil. In
Feigl's T@felanalyse drops of reagents
were added to a drop of the sample solution, spotted on a piece of filter paper,
and the analyte was identified through
characteristic color formation or chemical changes [16]. It may be interesting to
mention the little known fact that in his
earlier work, Runge had already followed
exactly the same principles. An example
is described in the third volume of his
Farbenchemie [11]. His aim was to establish the amount of a pigment in a tree
bark extract, and he carried this out by
precipitation with lead acetate: its solution was added to the sample solution until there was as excess of lead in the filtrate. The problem, however, was that the
addition of even a small amount of the
lead salt resulted in a dark, turbid suspension, prohibiting the observation of any
additional precipitate upon the addition
of further reagent solution, and it was difficult to filter this suspension. Runge simplified the investigation by developing a
spot test [1 la] (Figure 2). When a drop of
the turbid suspension was spotted on fil-

Historical Paper

ter paper, a dark spot was formed, surrounded by a turbid zone and then by a
clear ring which consisted either of water
(in the case of incomplete precipitation)
or excess lead acetate solution. If now a
drop of diluted (light yellow) potassium
chromate was spotted next to the clear
ring, it spread into it: in the case of the
presence of excess lead acetate, dark yellow led chromate formed, indicating that
the precipitation of the pigment was complete.
This discussion clearly showed that
while some of Runge's work may be considered as the precursor of the spot tests,
his beautiful multicolored pictures mirrored his fantasy, and not chromatography. His work was aptly characterized as
"the most original scientific playing"

This technique started in 1864 with the
observation of Christian Friedrich
Schoenbein (1799 1868), professor at the
University of Basel and the discoverer of
ozone, that when dipping a filter paper
strip into an aqueous solution, the solvent
and the dissolved substances will travel up
in the paper at different speeds, the solvent (water) being the fastest [18]. Friedrich Goppelsroeder (1837 1919) was
Schoenbein's student and he immediately
followed his teacher's observation with
his own work, describing the possibility of
recognizing individual dyes in their mixtures [19].
From then on, Goppelsroeder spent
practically his whole productive life exploring various aspects of this method
which he named capillary analysis (Kapillaranalyse); he published scores of papers
reporting on his observations when investigating the widest possible variety of natural substances. He also collected these
papers in a few books, with some additional comments [20 22]. However, as
noted by A. Griine in her detailed study of
the evolution of capillary analysis, "it is
usually very tiring to read (these publications), because they report on a large
number of individual observations without any clear line and without any observable advances" [23].
Goppelsroeder used long, narrow filter
paper strips and had their lower end immersed in the sample solution: in other
words, instead of adding a finite amount
of sample, the sample was continuously
Historical Paper

Figure 3. Goppelsroeder's set-up for capillary analysis [20]. Some of the paper strips were placed
under a bell-glass.
fed to the paper strip. Usually a dozen
such strips were affixed to a rack (Figure
3); sometimes the system was also placed
in a vacuum chamber or under pressure.
Periodically, Goppelsroeder also extracted the various colored zones from the
paper strip by alcohol and then repeated
the investigation with this solution. He always carefully recorded the observation
(height of the advanced zones) but without identification of the individual zones
and without any conclusions. No visualizing technique was used, thus the behavior
of colorless substances could not be observed. It should also be mentioned that
capillary analysis was a slow process: the
experiments took many hours.
Schoenbein, in his original work, clearly attributed the movement of the sample
components on the filter paper to capillary action. In his explanation Goppelsroeder thought that a number of physical
phenomena are involved, but he had no
clear understanding of their basic principles. According to R.L.M. Synge, "Goppelsroeder hopelessly confused adsorption, surface tension, diffusion and other
effects and arrived at no satisfying explanations for his phenomena" [24]. Goppelsroeder considered selective adsorption
as one of the phenomena causing the different speed of the upward travel of the
sample components and in this point he
was strongly opposed by Tswett, the inventor of chromatography.
Chromatographia 2001, 54, September (No. 5/6)

Mikhail Semenovich Tswett (1872

1919) carefully followed the work of Goppelsroeder and investigated the possible
relationship of his new technique, chromatographic adsorption analysis, with
Goppelsroeder's capillary analysis. In his
magnum opus' published in 1910 [25]
Tswett devoted a whole chapter (Chapter
VII) to the comparison of the two techniques. He particularly objected Goppelsroeder's assumption that adsorption has a
role in capillary analysis and, based on
some experiments, concluded that capillary analysis had nothing to do with adsorption, i.e., with chromatography.
With our present knowledge we realize
that Tswett's assessment of capillary analysis was not entirely correct: among a
number of phenomena (e.g., capillary action and selective diffusion) adsorption
also had an influence on the overall effect
of capillary analysis. The correct assessment was properly formulated by Synge
who characterized it as "frontal chromatography on paper" [24], and we may add
to this definition that capillary analysis
can be characterized as frontal adsorption
analysis on paper.
While emphasizing the superiority of
his new technique, the chromatographic
adsorption analysis (in column), over
Goppelsroeder's capillary analysis, Tswett
also realized that there are substances or
solvent systems which cannot be or can
only inadequately analyzed by the chro411

Figure 4. The capillary analysis arrangement of Platz [28].

matographic adsorption technique (e.g.,
aqueous solutions). He pointed out that
for such cases, capillary analysis could
play a role. However, capillary analysis in
the form carried out by Goppelsroeder is
"rough and imperfect" and may "distort
the actual content of a complex pigment."
Therefore, further refinement of capillary
analysis would be needed before it could
be used successfully for the analysis of
such samples, and he specifically mentioned the need to change from continuous introduction of the sample solution to
a finite sample and development with pure
solvent. In other words, methodology
should follow that of chromatography,
but now carrying it out on a filter paper instead of on a column [26b].
As already mentioned, the fundamental shortcoming of Goppelsroeder's technique was the fact that the sample was
continuously fed and thus, there was no
clear separation of the zones of the individual sample components: they overlapped
each other. As remarked by Newesely, "if
Goppelsroeder would have tried only
once to add a finite sample to the paper
and then washed it with the pure solvent,
then he might be named the father of
modern chromatography, and paper
chromatography would have been invented 80 years earlier" [27].
One further difference should also be
pointed out between capillary analysis
and paper chromatography as developed
by Martin's group, and this had already
been pointed out in their first paper describing the technique [3]. While in capillary analysis, separation depends on a
number of phenomena including adsorption of the solutes on cellulose, in paper
chromatography it depends on the differences in the partition coefficients between
the mobile phase and water, saturating


the cellulose: the paper is playing only the

role of an inert support. This fact was also
emphasized in the title of their paper
which referred to "a partition chromatographic method using paper" [3].
After Goppelsroeder's death the use of
capillary analysis was further widened.
According to H. Platz, it was included in
1922 in the Dutch [28] and later in the
German Homeopathic Pharmacopeia,
and it remained there even after the advent of paper chromatography [29]. However, the methodology changed very little
as compared to Goppelsroeder's original
technique (Figure 4).
Capillary analysis was significantly
modified by R.E. Liesegang (1869 1947).
In 1927 he placed the filter strips into a
closed chamber so that the atmosphere
surrounding it was saturated with the solvent vapor (Figure 5) [30]. A further radical change in 1943 was to spot the sample
on the paper and then developing it by
dipping the end of the paper strip into
pure solvent [31]. This, of course, was not
anymore "capillary analysis", but true
elution development, identical to the
method of paper chromatography. Liesegang also introduced another variant
which he called Kreutzkapillaranalyse
(cross capillary analysis): after spotting
the sample in one corner of the paper and
developing it in one direction, he turned
the paper 90oand carried out a second development, with another solvent [32]. This
was practically identical to the methodology of two-dimensional paper chromatography, described one year later by Consden, Gordon, and Martin in their fundamental paper [3].
There is no question that capillary analysis as modified by Liesegang was very
close to paper chromatography, as developed by Martin's group. However, the
Chromatographia 2001, 54, September (No. 5/6)

Figure 5. The capillary analysis system used by

Liesegang [30]. The container is covered by two
wooden plates: the lower one has a slit and the
filter paper strip is pulled through it. The purpose of the top plate is to hold the paper strip
in place.

two groups were not even aware of the

other's activities and Liesegang's work
had no impact on the further development. Let us not forget that at that time,
the war was raging on and there was no
communication between Germany and
England. Also, Liesegang was a colloid
chemist with no particular interest in analytical chemistry or biochemistry. At that
time he was already 74 years old, had no
formal academic affiliation; and he had
no followers. Thus, his work was not continued after his death and represented a
dead-end street in the evolution of chromatography.

Tswett and His Followers

It is generally not known that in the early
part of his study of plant pigments, Tswett
utilized filter paper as a model for the
plant's fibers. In his first report presented
in 1903 in Warsaw [33], Tswett described
his observations on the extraction of pigments from leaves. Carotenes could be extracted easily using naphtha or petrol
ether, * but for the extraction of the chlorophylls, a polar solvent such as ethanol
was needed. On the other hand, the extracted chlorophyllic pigments were soluble in the non-polar solvents. His assumption was that in the plant, the chlorophyllic pigments are attracted by adsorption to
the tissue, and one needs a solvent having
a dissolving power stronger than these adsorption forces. However, once separated
from the plant tissue, there are no adsorption forces which would retain the pig-

* Petrol ether consists mainly of C5-C6 hydrocarbons with a boiling range of 35 80 ~ while
naphtha (ligroin) consists of higher paraffins,
with more than 80% boiling between 130 and
145 ~
Historical Paper

ments: therefore, pure chlorophylls can be

easily dissolved in the non-polar solvents.
Tswett wanted to check in a controlled
experiment whether his assumption is correct. He selected filter paper to serve as
the "plant tissue" because both consist of
cellulose fibers. To create a "leaf," he evaporated the solvent of a pigment extract in
the presence of filter paper. The paper became green just like leaves and also behaved like leaves: carotenes could be extracted with petrol ether, but for the extraction of the chlorophylls (the green pigments), ethanol had to be added to the solvent. In addition, he also observed that
dipping filter paper into a solution of
chlorophylls in naphtha, it will adsorb the
dissolved pigments [33]. These experiments showed the validity of his assumptions.
During the development of the chromatographic adsorption analysis Tswett
systematically investigated the (selective)
adsorption properties of over 100 substances of the widest possible variety.
These were tabulated in his 1910 book
[26d]. The discussion of this table in the
book would imply that these substances
were tested in powdered form, used as colu m n packings. It is, however, interesting
to note that filter paper is also listed in the
table. Because no further information is
given, we cannot be sure whether Tswett
actually tried to carry out "paper chromatography", or this reference is related to
his previously mentioned experiments.
In his assessment of capillary analysis
mentioned earlier, Tswett made an important statement: he drew an analogy between the filter paper strip of capillary
analysis and the adsorption column of
chromatography [26b]. This statement almost led to the development of paper
chromatography, six years before the results of Martin's group.
We have to j u m p now 25 years, to the
mid 1930s, and to Kharkov, in the
U.S.S.R. (in Ukraine). The university had
an Institute of Experimental Pharmacy
and within this a physical chemistry laboratory. Its head was a young scientist,
Nikolai Arkad'evich Izmailov (1907
1961) who was just joined by a new graduate student, Maria Semenova Shraiber
(1904 1992). Forty years later, she published her reminiscences and thus, we have
a first-hand account of the happenings
[34, 35].
At that time, most of the pharmaceuticals were still galenic preparations and
problems existed in their quality, because
Historical Paper

of the lack of suitable analytical methods.

Therefore, the task set for Shraiber was to
improve methodology and develop more
reliable control methods.
Izmailov was well acquainted with
Tswett's work and they had been using
column adsorption chromatography for
the analysis of complex mixtures, combined with fluorimetry for the identification of the separated substances. However, this technique was too time-consuming, unsuitable for routine pharmaceutical
analysis. Therefore, another way had to
be found. Evidently they read Tswett's
1910 book [25] (most likely, it was available in the university's library) and remembered his analogy between the properties of an adsorption column and a strip
of filter paper. Thus, they were thinking
that using such an open, fiat surface
would accelerate the separation process.
They also remembered Tswett's criticism
against capillary analysis, that complete
separation could only be achieved having
a finite sample and development by pure
solvent in other words, using the technique adapted six years later for paper chromatography by Martin's group. However,
soon they realized that a simple filter paper will still not have the needed separation power: for this, adsorbents of higher
selectivity are needed. As a conclusion,
they prepared an adsorbent layer, added
one drop of the sample solution and drops
of a suitable solvent. In other words, instead of inventing paper chromatography,
Izmailov and Shraiber invented thin-layer
chromatography [36].
But this is another story.

[9] Range, F.F. Farbenchemie, 1: Lehrbuch

der praktischen Baumwollfiirberei (Chemistry of the Color, I.: Textbook of Practical Wool Dyeing). Mittler Verlag, Berlin,
[10] Range, F.F. Farbenchemie, 11: Die Kunst
zu Drucken. (Chemistry of Color, II: The
Art of Printing). Mittler Verlag, Berlin,
[11] Range, F.F. Farbenchemie, 111: Die Kunst
der Farbenbereitung. (The Art of Dye Preparation). E.S. Mittler & Sohn, Berlin,
1850; (a) pp. 15 16.
[12] Range, F.F. Zur Farbenchemie. Musterbilder j~r Freunde des Sch6nen and zum
Gebrauch j~r Zeichner, Maler, Verzierer
und Zeugdrucker, dargestellt durch chemische Wechselwirkung. (On the Chemis-

try of Color. Pattern Pictures for the

Friends of Beauty and for the Use of
Draftsmen, Painters, Decorators and Textile Printers. Prepared by Chemical Reactions.) E.S. Mittler & Sohn, Berlin, 1850.
[13] Range, F.F. Der Bildungstrieb der Stoffe,
veranschaulicht in selbsti~ndig gewachsenen
Bildern. (The Driving Force for Forma-

tion of Substances, Visualized by Selfgrown Pictures.) Published by the author,

Oranienburg, 1855.
[14] Runge, F.F. Das Od als Bildungstrieb der
StojJe, veransehaulieht in selbsti~ndig gewaehsenen Bildern. (The Od as the Driving

Force for Formation of Substances, Visualized by Self-grown Pictures.) Published by the author, Oranienburg, 1866.
(This book is identical to [13] except for a
changed title page. According to our
knowledge, only one copy of this book exists: it is in the Beinecke Rare Book &
Manuscript Library of Yale University.)
[15] Harsch, G.; Bussemas, H.H. Bilder die
sieh selber malen. Der Chemiker Runge und
seine "'Musterbilder j~r Freunde des Sch6hen. ""(Self-coloring Pictures. The Chemist

Range and his "Patter Pictures for the

Friends of Beauty.") DuMont Verlag,
K61n, 1985.
[16] Feigl, F. Qualitative Analyse mit Hilje von
Ti~pjelreaktionen," Theoretische Grundlage,
Praktische Au~j~hrung und Anwendung.

[1] Whelan, W.J. FASEB Journal 1995, 9,
287 288.
[2] Synge. R.L.M. Notes and Records of the
RoyalSoe. 1992,46, 309 312.
[3] Consden, R.; Gordon, A.H.; Martin
A.J.P. Bioehem.J. 1944,38, 224 232.
[4] Martin, A.J.P. In NobelLectures: Chemistry 1942 1962, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1964; pp. 355 373.
[5] Ettre, L.S.J. High Resolut. Chromatogr.
1995,18, 277 278.
[6] Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder),
Natural History. Bilingual edition in ten
volumes, translated and edited by H.
Rackham, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1938-1963; (a) Book
IX, Chapters LXI-LXIII; (b) Book
[7] Weil, H.; Williams, T.I. Naturwiss. 1953,
40,1 7.

[8] Bussemas, H.H.; Harsch, G.; Ettre, L.S.

Chromatographia1994,38, 243 254.
Chromatographia 2001, 54, September (No. 5/6)


(Qualitative Analysis with Help of Spot

Reactions; Theoretical Basis and Practical
Execution.) Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig, 1931; 2n d ed., 1935.
Bechhold, H. Z. phys. Chem. 1905, 52,
185 199.
Schoenbein, C.F. Verh. Naturjbrsch. Ges.
Basel 1861, 3, 249 255.
Goppelsroeder, F. Verh. Naturjbrsch. Ges.
Basel, 1861,3, 268 275.
Goppelsroeder, F. Capillaranalyse, beruhend auf Capillarit~ts- und Adsorptionserscheinungen. (Capillary Analysis, Based

on Capillarity and Adsorption Phenomena.) Emil Birkhfiuser Verlag, Basel, 1901.

[21] Goppelsroeder, F. Anregung zum Studium
der auf Capillarit~ts- und Adsorptionserscheinungen beruhenden Capillaranalyse. (Stimulus to Capillary Analysis,

Based on Capillarity- and Adsorption

Phenomena.) Helbing & Lichtenhalm Vetlag, Basel, 1906.
[22] Goppelsroeder, F. Capillaranalyse beruhend auf Capillarit~ts- und Adsorptionserscheinungen. (Capillary Analysis, Based

on Capillarity and Adsorption Phenomena.) SteinkopffVerlag, Dresden, 1910.


[23] Grfine, A. Osterr. Chem. Z. 1959, 60,

301 311.
[24] Synge, R.L.M. In Goodwin, Ed., British
Biochemistry Past and Present (Biochem,
Soc. Symposium No.30), Academic Press,
London, 1970; pp. 175 182.
[25] Tswett, M.S. Khromojilly v Rastitel'nom i
Zhivotnom Mire (Chlorophylls in the
Plant and Animal World.) Karbasnikov
Publishers, Warsaw, 1910; For a partial
English translation see [26a].
[26] Berezkin, V.G. Ed. Chromatographic Adsorption Analysis. Selected Works o f M. S.
Tswett. Ellis Harwood, New York, London, 1990; (a) pp. 35 93; (b) pp. 70 74;
(c) pp. 9 19;(d) pp. 49 51.
[27] Newesely, M. Chromatographia 1990, 30,
595 596.
[28] Platz, H. Ober Kapillaranalyse und ihre
Anwendung im pharmazeutischen Labora-




torium (On Capillary Analysis and its Application in the Pharmaceutical Laboratory.) W. Schwabe, Leipzig, 1922.
Schwabe, W. Homeopatisches Arzneibuch
(Book of Homeopathic Medication.) Private Publ. Berlin, 1950.
Liesegang, R.E.; Schmidt, H. Kolloidchemische Technologie (Colloidchemistry
Technology.) Steinkopff Verlag, Berlin,
Liesegang, R.E.Z. anal. Chem. 1943,126,
172 177, 334 336.
Liesegang, R.E. Naturwiss. 1943, 31,348
Tswett, M.S. O Novoi Kategorii Adsorbtsionnykh Yavlenii i o Primenenii ikh k Biokhimicheskomu Analizu (On a New Category of Adsorption Phenomena and Their
Application to Biochemical Analysis).
Lecture at the March 8, 1903 meeting of

Chromatographia 2001, 54, September (No. 5/6)



the Biological Section the Warsaw Society

of Natural Scientists. Published in: Trudy
Varshaw'kogo Obshchestva Estestvoi~pytatelei Otdelenie Biologii 1905, 14, 20 39.
For English translation see [26c].
Shraiber, M.S.J. Chromatogr. 1972, 73,
367 370.
Shraiber, M.S. In Ettre L.S.; Zlatkis, A.
Eds. 75 Years of Chromatography - A Historical Dialogue. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1979;pp. 413 417.
Izmailov, N.A.; Shraiber, M.S. Farmatsiya (Moscow) 1938, 3, 1 7. For English
translation see [37].
Berezkin, V . G . J . Planar Chromatogr.
1995,8, 401 405.
Received: May 23, 2001
Accepted: June 5, 2001

Historical Paper