MassHunter Enviroquant

Discussions about GC-MS, LC-MS, LC-FTIR, and other "coupled" analytical techniques.

4 posts Page 1 of 1
Hi all,

EPA 524 saga continues. I am covering volatile section after one of our chemists quit, and we re are in the process of transitioning from chemstation Enviroquant (which I dearly hate) to MassHunter EQ. Right now, tt appears that our MassHunter Enviroquant (10.1) is referencing wrong data files for CC calculations for EPA 524. We run 8 point curve from 0.5 to 60 ppb, and CC’s at several different levels (10, 0.5, 1, 2 and 5 ppb). First off, the mid response is referencing 60 ppb file, instead of the 10 ppb. Also, the area % seems to be calculated against 20 ppb instead of 10 (in the case of attached report below). During the acquisition setup, I assign cal levels, and also the CC levels. At this point, I cannot use this software for compliance reporting.

On a side note, I also have MassHUnter (older version, I want to say 8 but I am not the instrument right now) on my 7000QQQ that does not exhibit the same problem (I use it for EPA 521 and have 7 point cal and 2 CC levels 2, 50 and 100 ng/L and all are calculated correctly).

I know that MassHunter is using python for task automation so perhaps the subroutine needs to be looked at. Is anyone from Agilent reading this who can help?

https://ibb.co/G311DY6

Thanks!
Ivo.
If you are using the F.xx version of Envrioquant for Mass Hunter, it works just like the E.xx.xx versions from MSDChemstation. When evaluating the continuing calibration you select which cal level you want to compare to the standard and it should compare it to that level. The selection menu is the last option on the Continuing Calibration menu dropdown.

If you are using the Mass Hunter Quantative Data Analysis then you must tell it which level you are using when you run the CCV by setting the type to QC instead of CAL or Sample and you have to enter the calibration level it is equivalent to in the next column.

I have never had any problems getting either to give me a proper evaluation of the CCV. As for compliance reporting, we do that through our LIMS and not with reports directly from the instrument, it gives us much more flexibility in reporting formats for that.
The past is there to guide us into the future, not to dwell in.
James_Ball wrote:
If you are using the F.xx version of Envrioquant for Mass Hunter, it works just like the E.xx.xx versions from MSDChemstation. When evaluating the continuing calibration you select which cal level you want to compare to the standard and it should compare it to that level. The selection menu is the last option on the Continuing Calibration menu dropdown.

If you are using the Mass Hunter Quantative Data Analysis then you must tell it which level you are using when you run the CCV by setting the type to QC instead of CAL or Sample and you have to enter the calibration level it is equivalent to in the next column.

I have never had any problems getting either to give me a proper evaluation of the CCV. As for compliance reporting, we do that through our LIMS and not with reports directly from the instrument, it gives us much more flexibility in reporting formats for that.


Thank you for your reply, James.

I have earlier version of MH on my 7000C and don’t have any issues there (EPA 521 NDMA). I have been using it since 2016 or so.

I have used Chemstation EQ and I am familiar with how to evaluate the CC’s there. For EPA 524, we are transitioning from Chemstation EQ to MH since supposedly Chemstation EQ will not be supported anymore (*). The 3 GCMS are running on MH version 10 and that’s where I am seeing problems. I will take screenshots of errors I am getting on those instruments and post it here (after I get back from Cinti in a week). I kind of figure it out by reading their manual but it does not work every time, it is impossible to describe the errors that the instruments throw up since I am not in the lab today. I may have to call Agilent to have them sort it out and help me.

ps: What LIMS do you have?
(*): Also, I am not huge of the Chemstation EQ. :roll:

Thank you again.
Ostravaczech wrote:
James_Ball wrote:
If you are using the F.xx version of Envrioquant for Mass Hunter, it works just like the E.xx.xx versions from MSDChemstation. When evaluating the continuing calibration you select which cal level you want to compare to the standard and it should compare it to that level. The selection menu is the last option on the Continuing Calibration menu dropdown.

If you are using the Mass Hunter Quantative Data Analysis then you must tell it which level you are using when you run the CCV by setting the type to QC instead of CAL or Sample and you have to enter the calibration level it is equivalent to in the next column.

I have never had any problems getting either to give me a proper evaluation of the CCV. As for compliance reporting, we do that through our LIMS and not with reports directly from the instrument, it gives us much more flexibility in reporting formats for that.


Thank you for your reply, James.

I have earlier version of MH on my 7000C and don’t have any issues there (EPA 521 NDMA). I have been using it since 2016 or so.

I have used Chemstation EQ and I am familiar with how to evaluate the CC’s there. For EPA 524, we are transitioning from Chemstation EQ to MH since supposedly Chemstation EQ will not be supported anymore (*). The 3 GCMS are running on MH version 10 and that’s where I am seeing problems. I will take screenshots of errors I am getting on those instruments and post it here (after I get back from Cinti in a week). I kind of figure it out by reading their manual but it does not work every time, it is impossible to describe the errors that the instruments throw up since I am not in the lab today. I may have to call Agilent to have them sort it out and help me.

ps: What LIMS do you have?
(*): Also, I am not huge of the Chemstation EQ. :roll:

Thank you again.


We use Element LIMS by Promium. If you upload the raw results into it, then all the QC calculations and reporting at taken care of within LIMS. It makes the QC side of things much easier. The only thing it didn't handle well was the 525.2 where you had both the extracted IS and the spiked IS, but if you also called the extracted ones surrogates then you could get a good calculated recovery, you just had to clarify that when reporting.
The past is there to guide us into the future, not to dwell in.
4 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1117 on Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: benhutcherson and 1 guest

Latest Blog Posts from Separation Science

Separation Science offers free learning from the experts covering methods, applications, webinars, eSeminars, videos, tutorials for users of liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, sample preparation and related analytical techniques.

Subscribe to our eNewsletter with daily, weekly or monthly updates: Food & Beverage, Environmental, (Bio)Pharmaceutical, Bioclinical, Liquid Chromatography, Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry.

Liquid Chromatography

Gas Chromatography

Mass Spectrometry