Chromatography Forum

Yves, we were suppose to help our collegue to find the right instrument!!! YOU began talking about Shimadzu, and only Shimadzu...I talked about my experience and data on instruments of every brand and on real matrix.
By the way, everybody has understood that you are a Shimadzu Sales Rep, and will not trust you.

To the collegue who began this topic: believe me, buy an LCMS from every brand you want but not Shimatzu, as it's new with this tecnique and it's still full of issues and bugs,,,

Yves

I WAS an Agilent sales Rep time ago, and even I didn't recomend any brand to our collegue, you were the only that try to sell Shimadzu.

Even Shimadzu have the UHPLC with higher pressure range to1300 bar and the other brands are below Agilent 1200 bar Waters 1000 bar etc., that means nothing in the day to day work. The instrument beside to have high pressure capability, also must be robust, high sensitivity and low carry over. Shimadzu is expert in always try to beat Agilent in Specs but not in robustness.

isuphysics, please do not have price as your primary consideration for buying an Instrument; consider Specs and what this specs will benefit you and support you should ask for references of other costumers.

Ok Let me my spew my 2 cents worth ( if you are not an Amerrican it means I want to say something, not necessarily inportant)

Shimadzu has always been a follower of mainstream instrumentation....yes they might have had patents on a number of items but had no idea how to implement or use them in science. A few years ago they went around taking pictures of American equipment and now we have reverse engineered instrumentation; where the start button is red and the stop button is green.... ...they did have the first talking GC oven..where did it end up?

For the fellow that is looking for a LC/QQQ look at all manufacturers and make your choice you will have to live with it....price isn't everything, performance in order to do your job is....make the wrong decission and your boss will be on your back. There are instruments that make your life easy make the right choice for you. Look at everyone and the best instrument ( in your eyes) win.

Opinions are like A$$() everyone has one.....

This is an interesting discussion, as it is about brands and personal views. It reminds me a little bit of a discussion on automobiles what is better and more reliable: Mercedes or BMW?
AS for my personal experiences: Shimadzu Prominence is a highly reliable Frontend for MS, the downtime less than for our 1100 system. RUnning cost are much lower. As for Mass specs: sorry, no first hand opinion yet.

But as far as specs are concerned it seems an option if you are considering a 3200 or 6430. If you compare Shimadzus 8030 to a 5500 or 6490 it is like comparing a Mercedes SLK to a BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne: All have their purposes (whatever they are).

somebody wrote at the beginning: sort out some realistic test samples and a method and get all the manufacturers to do demos. It's got lost in the discussion since, but this is the only sensible way to choose. Even the most well-meaning people have some bias in their opinion or their experience (not many are lucky enough to have worked with the appropriate models from every manufacturer).

There are so many factors to consider: price, software, robustness, sensitivity, price and value of service-contract or other service arrangements, versatility, how it fits physically into the space available, how it fits with other, existing analytical equipment. Every lab and application is different, and the ideal instrument for Dr Schmitt may be far from ideal for Mr Smith or Professor Forgeron.

You can't, unfortunately, trust sales data directly. Each company defines things slightly differently, making the data very hard to compare. For example, most will publish sensitivity using reserpine, but each will report different S/N on different size injections and it takes some ingenuity to put them on a comparable basis. Even S/N can be defined in different ways. If you get your own test data, you can make sure it's comparable. Also, demos put you in contact with demo chemists, who are frequently a little more honest and realistic than sales staff (after all, a sales rep can say "it detects down to 1 attomole", but the demo chemist has to follow this up with a peak!).

Hi, 8030 seems to be a very fast triple quad, but you have also to consider the sensibility that is much lower than other instruments (tqd, 6010b and 6030, thermo quantum access max, ecc).

Hi All,

Firstly, I'd like to be open about my interest in this topic, I'm a Shimadzu employee who's responsible (amongst other things) for developing the 8030 business in the UK.

Having read through the thread, I wholly agree with "lmh"'s take on the situation. I've previously worked for another major LCMSMS vendor and when I was asked what my systems there were like, my reply would be very similar to lmh's. The LCMSMS market is very complex and very competitive. What's right for one person isn't right for another. Sensitivity is one aspect, and is often sample dependant. I've seen enough data from demos to know that the 8030 is capable of outperforming any of the instruments in its class.

Although I have the data to prove my claims, I wouldn't expect anyone to buy Shimadzu based on my comments on a forum. As I've said, and again, I'd echo "lmh", you need to get the instrument which is right for you. There are a lot of variables to sort and I'd be very happy to go through yours with you. Please put together a set of representative samples, and come in and talk to us. We've got a busy schedule of demos, but we'd be very happy to see you. If you're in the UK and you come in, I look forward to meeting you.

As it's a public forum and some discussions are commercially sensitive, I can't go through everything on this forum. If people have any questions they'd like answered, I'd be happy to help offline.

To the original poster, if you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch.

Philco,

you are a Shimadzu employee, and you say you have data to prove that 8030 outperforms any of the instruments in its class.....
Ok, every sales rep of every brand have such data for its instrument. It's not true that 8030 can outperform a TSQ Quantum Max (maybe working in H_SRM mode in complex mode) or an ABI 3200!!! I have all the data I obtained through a real demo on my samples...and I'm not a LCMS seller...)

Remember that in very complex matrix (tobacco, green coffee, etc...) the heated ESI and Turbo Ion Spray from Thermo and Sciex worked fine...with Shimadzu source was a disaster..

Hi Hermo,

Sadly I can't go into a detailed discussion of every application or demo result. I'm sorry and disappointed that your demo experience wasn't as positive as we would like. But all we can say from your samples was that under the demo conditions that existed at the time of your demo, the Shimadzu LCMSMS system didn't perform as well as the other instruments you listed for your samples. But that is as far as the experiment goes. To extrapolate your experience to all complex samples would be incorrect.

I will post this last post to everyone who is reading this thread, and then encourage anyone who has questions to get in touch with me directly. The main thrust of my posting was this:

Purchasing an LCMSMS system is a complex decision, with many factors involved. The best way to find the most appropriate system for you is to contact the vendors and arrange for a demo of some representative samples. Go along, evaluate the instrument, company and any other factors which you think will influence your success with your new equipment. I would ask that Shimadzu be one of the companies you evaluate. And then make your decision, based on your own criteria.

If that leads you to choose Shimadzu, that's hopefully the beginning of a successful partnership with us. If you choose another vendor that you feel will make you successful, then neither I nor any other of the vendors who hasn't been chosen has any right to argue. You've chosen the vendor you feel is most appropriate for you.

Good Luck to everyone who is contemplating purchasing a Triple Quad, and I hope to meet those of you in the UK to continue this discussion in person!

Philco,

you are a very correct person. Mine was not a attack to Shimadzu, but my experience on some demos..

Regards

Hi to all, please consider that all the companies are making (or have made) not-linear-triple quad: ab sciex, thermo, waters done it...Agilent has been the last (only the last 6490 has not-linear triple quad)...
Shimadzu 8030 has a linear triple-quad...

There is something going on about the sensitivity specs of 8030. In their specification sheet, it states that, 1 pg reserpine S/N>200 (RMS). Shimazdu sellers are submitting extra documents about the sensitivity of the model showing S/N>1000 which does not likely to be an original Shimadzu documentation. I am confused about why the international spec sheet is not like that if this is true.

we are also considering the shimadzu 8030 triple quad due to tight budget and good history with shimadzu HPLC - the alternative for us at this price point would be an agilent 6460.

i wonder if there are any updates on user experiences/impressions with the 8030 since the last post on this thread, several months ago.

our interest is mostly drug detection in urine, plasma, saliva etc

grateful for any feedback before we take the plunge!

I deal with hundreds of Shimadzu users a year,

Yves

Can we take it from this that you work for Shimadzu, possibly in sales ?

Peter

What is the prize of 8030 with UHPLC Nexera in your country.
Shimadzu salesman offer us this set for about 250000 EUR.

We have LC-MS/MS Agilent 6410 with 1200 HPLC and have plans
to buy second LC-MS/MS but something better than old one (sensitivity)

Any users of Agilent 6420 / 6430 or 6460 here ?