Which is best: Thermo ISQ or Shimadzu QP2010Ultra?

[u0008355]

Dear all, I am about to buy a new single quadrupole GC/MS and I am still undecided between a Thermo ISQ or a Shimadzu QP2010Ultra. Price for both is the same, autosampler also (combipal AOC 6000). Software is GCMSSolutions on Shimadzu and XCalibur on Thermo.
One feature that attracted me on the Thermo is the included vacuum interlock system so that I could change from an EI to a PCI source without having to vent the system, and changing the source in general seemed a lot easier on the Thermo than on the Shimadzu (for me it would be important to be able to switch easily between EI and PCI). Service for both I heard is quite good over here, so that should be about the same. Other thing I was wondering about is the reliability and robustness of both machines. Anybody any experience? Finally, the Thermo ISQ could also be made to work together with Cerno Massworks to do more accurate mass measurements (100-1000 x better than nominal, or so I heard), thereby allowing formula ID. With Shimadzu they are still trying to implement the feature to record data in profile mode - will be included in the next software update apparently, but right now it's still untested. Anybody any experience by any chance with using Cerno Massworks with Thermo ISQ data? Does it work? (in my application it would be to measure the mass of the molecular ion more accurately in PCI mode and try to determine the molecular formula to help with compound identification)

[dr_bahram1977]

Hi
I've both instruments in my lab.
Personally, I hate shimadzu material quality in GC! they really made it like a toy rather than a robust lab instrument. our QP2010 has some serious problems and was out of use after 2 years. they insist of UFMS feather, but I'm not satisfied with that.

About thermo, I think it's better than shimadzu. Of course, I prefer Agilent in all ways.
I've no experience about Cerno.
If you've to choose between them, go for thermo.

[u0008355]

Many thanks for the advice - much appreciated! Agilent was out of budget unfortunately and service here is really bad - so Thermo it will be!

[Garnett]

Very interesting topic. We are also buying low-budget GC-MS (only EI source) and both Ultra QP2010 and Thermo ISQ QD are the possible options. Prices are indeed quite similar. QP2010 really looks like a toy and I heard that there was a problem with Eco series with electronics being poorly insulated and exposed to high temperature of the oven which resulted in regular problems. What was problem with your instrument dr_bahram1977 that it had to be retired after 2 years of operation? Was the problem on GC or MS part of the instrument?


u0008355 why did you decide for XCalibur Thermo software instead of other two options?
Could you also tell me something more about the Cerno Massworks? Is this a software that is installed in addition to XCalibur or instead of it? Any idea about the price and how it works?

We are also leaning towards buying the Thermo although third option (Perkin Elmer SQ8 680) is impressive as well, but slightly more expensive.

Does anyone know how long are those instruments on the market? QP2010 probably from 2010 so not really a new model.

[u0008355]

Re software we were thinking that Xcalibur would be enough given that we are mainly doing non-target analyses, Tracefinder is more to integrate standard sets of compounds and make standard reports, like pesticide analyses etc, which we don't need. Also, we are using our own in-house developed software for chromatogram alignment, integration and compound identification/library search (will later be released as a free R package), so all we need is good CDF file export really. Chromeleon I'm not sure really...

We've had some experience using a Shimadzu QP2010Ultra before in another lab, but we experienced a fair few problems unfortunately (turbomolecular pump broke down, and later the electronmultiplier)... Now it's up and running again though, and seems to work OK. Could just have been bad luck, as I've heard other labs were everything has been running well for years. It also depends how many people use the machine - best is to have a well trained operator as opposed to lots of people messing around with the machine...

With Cerno Massworks one can supposedly obtain 100 or even 1000 x better than nominal mass accuracy on single quadrupole instruments (http://www.cernobioscience.com/). Especially in combination with PCI this could be very useful for formula and compound ID. I haven't used it myself though, I've only seen the ads. It seems to be most thoroughly tested with Agilent systems, although there is also some application notes for the Thermo ISQ. With Shimadzu they're still testing it out, might be supported in the next software update (only works if spectra can be exported in profile as opposed to centroid mode)... With Agilent they offer it as a bundle with a new machine for ca 5000 euros. Normal price is 15 000 euros, which I think is a bit steep. But maybe you can bargain a bit, or get an academic discount or something, not sure... Would be nice if anybody with a license for Cerno could share their experience here... Does it work as advertized?

[Tal Alon]

Since some of the discussion above is about the provision of elemental formula by single quadrupole GC-MS, another option is to use the TAMI Molecule Identifier software, http://www.avivanalytical.com/Isotope-Abundance.aspx
This software automatically confirms or rejects NIST library identification and independently provides elemental formula for unknowns that are not in the library. It is very easy to work with, works well with standard centroid data files, can improve the mass accuracy and cost less than its alternatives.

u0008355 asked "Does it work as advertised". You can Email your standard centroid Chemstation or MassHunter files to Aviv Analytical and ask for its demonstration via the analysis of your indicated compounds.