Agilent vs Thermo

[thohry]

I have never used Thermo and have neary 20 year experience on Agilent (HP then) GC/MS and quite satisfied. Just yesterday, I visited a lab which analyze lots of things (they are in charge of goods clasification). One man told me, they have 5 or 6 GC/MS , all from Agilent and Thermo, and all the staff would like to work on Agilents. They only reluctantly work on Thermo if they have no choice. He explained that's because the friendliness of Chemstation software.

[BMU_VMW]

A colleague of mine has a thermo unit with the pull-out ion volume and I have a couple varians with the pull out source as well. You still have to let them cool down to swap out,

I swap my ion-volumes without cooling the system down. It stays at 250°C and it does not cause any problems.

For the moment we have to put our old HS-DSQ (2002) back into service because there are more samples comming in than we can handle with one instrument. It can still compete with our Agilent (2012)

I'd say bonus point for Thermo

[James_Ball]

Get the turbo. If Agilent is still figuring out their packaging problems and you order the oil-less rough pump, you might score an extra DS602 rough pump as well. Don't let them take the DS602 back, it is a very quiet pump. First time I hooked it up I didn't think it was running until I touched it and felt a slight vibration. My ears from 20 years in the future have already thanked me.

On my 5973 and 5975 units I have pretty much replaced the rough pumps with old Edwards E2M2 that I kept when we retired the old 5995, 5970, 5971 and 5972 units. Those are far quieter and run cooler than the small pumps the newer units came with.

[tdgcuser]

Allow me to correct myself, Agilent is shipping the DS42 with the 5977. It's still a very quiet pump. We'll sell how long it lasts.

It makes sense that you don't have to cool down the ion volume prior to removal, just makes it a little easier to handle. I tend to keep my spares in glass vials and clean as needed. A lot less expensive to keep spare ion volumes than an entire Agilent ion source.

[wraymogg]

Hello,

after some considerations and visit to both Thermo and Agilent I came up with these:

1. Both systems are quite new on the market and there are no reports for their rugged-ness. The Agilent 5977A + 7890B are on the market since 2013 and Thermo ICQ LT + Trace 1300 are since 2010 MS and 2011 GC.

2. Thermo has the Vacuum Interlock advantage, as tdg pointed is less expensive to keep spare ion volumes than whole ion sources. Also not loosing vacuum is always nice, together with their option to change the column without loosing vacuum, makes it a 'forever vacuum' system.

3. Agilent's quadrupole seems superior from both longevity and quality points of view. Agilent's is made of glass so it can be heated to eliminate ambiental temperature variations. Also because is made of glass, the rods are hyperbolic, meaning better resolution and peak shape. On the weak side, if you contaminate it, is almost impossible to clean it without removing the gold coating. So keep it at 200 degrees C and you are.. golden...

4. Chromeleon 7.2 seems the best software around these days. Too bad is very expensive, and I didn't got it included in the system price. It was offered to me for an extra 7000 EUR, which is a lot for a single system and not using the CDS of it. So I have to give it to MassHunter which is more easy to use than Xcalibur.

5. Thermo is offering a 1500:1 S/N system in the same price as Agilent offers a 600:1 S/N. However, Thermo is using a trick to reach this, meaning they are using a 15m internal testing column, where Agilent it uses a standard inert 30m DB5 column. Since I cannot truly compare them, I looked at the H2 test, both on 30m column, and there they were identical in test, 100:1. So my conclusion is the 1500:1 Thermo system is not really 1500:1 but under 1000:1 maybe even around 600:1.

6. After watching a couple of videos, I reached the conclusion the consumable exchanges on Thermo are faster than Agilent. Column, septa and liner are VERY fast changed on Trace 1300, all nuts are finger-tight, even the injection port one, so no wrenches needed. Along with not loosing the vacuum, the changing time is WAY less than Agilent's. Also on this chapter, the injector is VERY easy to remove on Trace 1300, making it very easy to clean it.

7. On Agilent side, I really like the window on MS so you can see if the filament is actually on. Also, the Agilent has buttons all over the GC and MS, where Thermo has none. Well, one.. START/STOP. Taking into account I have my data systems not near the devices, it is not nice i am not able to see when surge pressure is done, current timer or temperature directly on GC. Of course you can always buy the spaceship Trace 1310 with very nice and modern touch screen, but 3000 USD just for that, is not worth in my opinion.

8. One smart move by Thermo, they saw Agilent has 70% of the market, so Trace 1300 works with identical consumables as Agilent GCs. All Agilent septas, liners, bottom seal, top seal, nuts, etc, are working on the Trace 1300.

My decision will be 90% Thermo, because I got a smaller price, 5k EUR less, with more things included. Example, I got included the column, SSL injector with backflush and the option not to loose vacuum on column change. Also I got the vacuum interlock model with the big turbo pump. Agilent system is bare... only the backflush option is another 3k EUR. Also I really love the modularity. If I will need a PTV, is 10 seconds away, since is almost plug-and-play. If I want to put an ECD, I just disconnect the column from MS WITHOUT LOOSING VACUUM, and I plug it into the ECD, all connections are finger tight. Same with a FID for the dirty jobs. All the nice options from Agilent are extra, and a lot extra... DS42i pump is 3800 EUR more, He saver is 3000 EUR more, backflush option 3000 EUR more, etc. On the bright side that thing that Agilent is forcing by contract to purchase only Agilent consumables is not true. Was a pure disinformation. Also they offered to sell the J&W columns on Restek prices, so this is very nice.

Best regards,
Vlad Popovici

[CE Instruments]

3. Agilent's quadrupole seems superior from both longevity and quality points of view. Agilent's is made of glass so it can be heated to eliminate ambiental temperature variations. Also because is made of glass, the rods are hyperbolic, meaning better resolution and peak shape. On the weak side, if you contaminate it, is almost impossible to clean it without removing the gold coating. So keep it at 200 degrees C and you are.. golden...

Not true at all IMO. I have sold against Agilent for years, this was always a negative ! A glass quad !! it is just a coating which will surely degrade and is a consumable. The Thermo used to use real metal rods with pre filters which could be cleaned. Whilst this usually means exchange as part of the contract perhaps not a great deal of difference but lifetime it should be cheaper. Why would you have to heat the quads ? Not done in any real systems, Agilent have to heat because the glass adsorbs water. In real terms this means it is much slower to start up , you have an extra heater to fail etc.

[thohry]

3. Agilent's quadrupole seems superior from both longevity and quality points of view. Agilent's is made of glass so it can be heated to eliminate ambiental temperature variations. Also because is made of glass, the rods are hyperbolic, meaning better resolution and peak shape. On the weak side, if you contaminate it, is almost impossible to clean it without removing the gold coating. So keep it at 200 degrees C and you are.. golden...

Not true at all IMO. I have sold against Agilent for years, this was always a negative ! A glass quad !! it is just a coating which will surely degrade and is a consumable. The Thermo used to use real metal rods with pre filters which could be cleaned. Whilst this usually means exchange as part of the contract perhaps not a great deal of difference but lifetime it should be cheaper. Why would you have to heat the quads ? Not done in any real systems, Agilent have to heat because the glass adsorbs water. In real terms this means it is much slower to start up , you have an extra heater to fail etc.

There is a 5973 in our lab, and the quad has never been touched since 1997. I don't think a quadrupole is a kind of consumable.

[GRovian]

Vlad, I have the exactly Thermo system you mentioned, I can give you plenty of details (in romanian, no less ) but in private, I don't want any lawyers after my ass on that. Gimme a working adress at prostiidepeweb la gmail dot com, will follow-up.

GRovian.

[James_Ball]

3. Agilent's quadrupole seems superior from both longevity and quality points of view. Agilent's is made of glass so it can be heated to eliminate ambiental temperature variations. Also because is made of glass, the rods are hyperbolic, meaning better resolution and peak shape. On the weak side, if you contaminate it, is almost impossible to clean it without removing the gold coating. So keep it at 200 degrees C and you are.. golden...

Not true at all IMO. I have sold against Agilent for years, this was always a negative ! A glass quad !! it is just a coating which will surely degrade and is a consumable. The Thermo used to use real metal rods with pre filters which could be cleaned. Whilst this usually means exchange as part of the contract perhaps not a great deal of difference but lifetime it should be cheaper. Why would you have to heat the quads ? Not done in any real systems, Agilent have to heat because the glass adsorbs water. In real terms this means it is much slower to start up , you have an extra heater to fail etc.

There is a 5973 in our lab, and the quad has never been touched since 1997. I don't think a quadrupole is a kind of consumable.

I agree, since Agilent went to the quads in the 5973 and up models there haven't been any problems with failures. Also it is a gold foil in the outside of the fused silica or is it actually imbedded inside the fused silica now? The old silver foil in the 5971/72 was the type that failed quite often, not the new ones. Also Agilent/HP was heating the quads even when they used metal ones back in the 5995 model. The 5995 and the 5970 had heaters on the analyzer chamber that indirectly heated the quads I believe.

The only time I ever had to clean the quads on an HP/Agilent was when we had a power failure and one of those huge oil diffusion pumps on the 5995 backstreamed oil into the analyzer chamber, now that was a mess. Otherwise I have had instruments run for 15+ years without ever having to clean the quads.

[carol]

Hi,
I don't know what others have told you but with my experience with Agilent and my colleges experience with Thermo I will suggest you to get an Agilent without doubt! You always have to be cleaning the Thermo instrument and its parts are very fragile, something completely different that what I have experience with Agilent instrument.
In our lab we are all wondering by our the director diced to by two thermo instrument (GC-MS and GC-MS/MS) instead of an Agilent, the diference was the price.

Hope it help!
Carol

[GRovian]

/

[gapeev]

A bit off-topic, how does the old GCQ compare to the current offerings? Is it just absolute as in no longer supported or has significantly inferior performance?
Thanks!

[ThermoMarkB]

I'll see if I can weigh in on this one...

Thermo all the way!

All kidding aside, I suggest you schedule a live demonstration of the hardware and software for your specific analysis. Instrument specs are one thing, but all too often people never actually do their due diligence and give them a fair shot based on empirical evidence.I'd like to think that the Thermo hardware is far superior, but as a chemist, I need proof to make that call, not just opinions.

...and lastly, Chromleon is an amazing CDS. I would strongly consider your interface to the hardware as a major decision factor over IDLs. Think about it this way, if I were to replace your version of Windows with Linux, you'd probably feel lost and unhappy about your PC, when in fact it's just the ease of use that's causing your perception to change. Don't skimp on the stuff that you will actually use day-in and day-out.

-Mark

[christophe_j]

Only Agilent for me the best instrument maybe not best company to deal with but our local agent is very good

[giacomo56]

Don"t you wonder why Agilent has 70-75 % market share when there's quite a few other GC/MS's being sold, ie: Thermo, SH
himadzu, PE, Bruker...a few Euros saved up front will cost you quite a few more down the line.

Let's talk Turbo vs Diff pump....when you clean an MS you do it at the end of the day, while you are home the systems pumps down the next morning you are up and running...rarely do Diff go bad, change the oil every 6 months and you are good to go.
turbo's get you to vacuum faster, but, then you need for all the temperature to equilibrate, so what exactly have you gained in time?

Any consumables will do, but, if you have a problem the troubleshooting will be done with the consumables the vendor requires, that is standard with ANY company.

Sources are another difference, you have inertly coated SS, or whole "metal" inert sources so it doesn't matter how often you rub the coat will not disappear.....

Quads, true the 5971/5972 were gold coated quartz, but the newest quads from Agilent are inbedded gold..no matter how much you rub the gold doesn"t disappear. IF it truly was a bad design would Agilent keep on building new systems with them? Also they do give you a true hyperbolic profile for your "chemstry"....and they rarely, i mean rarely need cleaning.

i don't know you but if you ever leave your job knowing Agilent software versus anyone elses...you will much more marketable in the job market.
You decide, it's your neck,your decission...but,I have never seen anyone fired (dismissed) for buying an Agilent.

NO, I am not a user of Agilent or Thermo or Shimadzu or anyone elses....just an interested observer,
and as someone else said...do a demo and call past users.....see how service is and training.