Which HPLC would you buy?

[KarenJ]

We have two Dionex U3000 and they have been good instruments. We really like the Chromeleon software and even switched our Agilent system and Shimadzu instrument to the Chromeleon software. The Shimadzu that I have has performed well but it is very old so I can not say what the current instruments are like. We have the dual tertiary pumps on our U3000 systems and room in our column compartment for 2 columns. We like this because it allows us to have 2 completely different methods set up on the instrument at any time, although they can not be run at the same time.

[juddc]

I could just about have written Vlad's post, but I would have substituted Waters Alliance for Agilent 1100. Both Agilent and Waters make very robust machines and they would both be on my short list. I have also used a Dionex unit and it was well built, but that was almost 20 years ago, so relevence is minimal. My preference is for Waters simply based upon my experience; I prefer the Waters software and hardware interface to Agilent's and I have found their customer support to be fantastic at all levels for a very long time. On a side note, a few years ago I spent a week at Waters HQ in Milford, MA and it seemed to me that the folks working there really liked working there. The place had a good vibe.

[hajdaei]

The one recommendation I would make is to stay away from Varian. We have had nothing but problems with their HPLC equipment.

Otherwise most LCs made these days are pretty reliable.

[adam]

Yeah, I'ld have to agree. We have had many problems with our Varian HPLC systems.

[cynthia zapatel]

Did you finally buy the Ultimate 3000 Dionex? as I am interested in this dual system. What about the service in Argentina?
Thanks

[Bintang]

What are you going to use the system for, if you are just a research lab where you will be modding the systems continously or are you going to run long series analyses.
If you want flexibillity I think you can not beat Shimadzu (they make the best pumps and really good detectors). Their software is not that easy to work with.
if you want to run long series (and do no modifications) likely a Waters or Agilent system is better. (I dont really have a lot of experience with either).

[Widebore]

Hi

I have used many Shimadzu LC-PDA systems in the past and I think they are the best value for money. There is a lot of stigma around Shimadzu not being reliable.... But in my experience they are reliable and are easily serviceable because the manuals are good. The standard Shimadzu software( is it still class-VP?) is great for research work but is poor when it comes to regulated labs.

I have never been a fan of Varian/Agilent nor Waters Alliance HPLCs. However, if you had a little more money then the Waters Acquity UPLC system should be the one that you purchase. The only downside with the acquity UPLCs is the column heater compartment (maximum column size is 15cm + guard if your lucky). However, I have been told that the Waters H-class UPLC can accommodate all HPLC column sizes. Note that the acquity UPLC is high pressure mixing and the H-class is low pressure mixing.

My final piece of advice is to assess the service support performance among different vendors before purchasing.

[lperelman]

I am a huge fan of the Waters UPLC line. They are amazingly fast, extremely reliable, and I am always pleased with the results. I've worked with Shimadzu and Agilent, and they are solid, but I think they're a tier down from the UPLC systems. Granted, the core technology is a bit different (the pressure is obviously much higher on UPLC). Also, they cost considerably more, but they act as quickly as two-three HPLC systems.

[Karen01]

For HPLCs from my experience, I think it's a mistake to consider anything besides Water's or Agilent.

IMO think Water's is ahead in UPLC technology and I GREATLY prefer Empower to Chemstation.

- Karen

[Uros]

I think that Agilent 1200 infinity series outperform Waters UPLC, and Empower is less user-friendly software then Chemstation, but for FDA restricted enviroment, I would recommend Empower

[Karen01]

and Empower is less user-friendly software then Chemstation, but for FDA restricted enviroment, I would recommend Empower

That depends I guess on how one defines user friendly. IMO Empower is the better choice for a fast paced R&D environment which does a lot of both method development AND runs a lot of samples in providing analytical support for product and process development.

While the cartoons of Chemstation make the simplest operations more obvious, I find the Empower approach to be much more capable and convenient for automating operations in an R&D environment, By that I mean for running experiments,creating sophisticated custom calculations and custom fields, and reporting as well as exporting data. Most of these things can be done faster on Empower.

The relational database approach in the end is just more capable.

Though Empower has more pieces to setting things up, in terms of basic user friendliness, why would one ever want to see arbitrary file names for an injection instead of the sample information while running?

In my last job I headed an Analytical R&D group. We had a number of HPLC's in the lab one of which was Agilent run by Chemstation. (We ran the Agilent GC's through Empower too)

Those that came into teh group not knowing Empower but knowing Chemstation were a bit daunted by Chemstation initially, but once they learned it they preferred over Chemstaion because they found that they could get their work done faster. The preference was so strong that the Agilent instrument sat unused most of the time by THEIR choice.

In terms of hardware I agree that the 1100's had an edge over the Alliance chromatographically because of lower dead volume, I think the front panel controls made it easier to use.

In my current new job we have an Agilent 1260. From what I've seen so far I think the Aquity is the better instrument chromatographically.

- Karen