Buy a new QQQ

[guira]

hi all
I'm planning to buy a new UPLC-QQQ and so I've requested info to 3 of systems:
API4000 (AB)
Agilent (6460 and 6490)
Waters (Xevo TQ and Xevo TQ-S)

From the of the companies it is clear: all of them have the best-most-sensitive-faster QQQ of the market. So, is there a website where I could find a 'real' (in the sense of objective) comparison of QQQ??
Of course, 6490 is better than 6460, Xevo TQS>Xevo TQ and so on, but I find it difficult to say whether the 6460 is better than the Xevo TQ or not and How to compare them??

(and do not forget the price)

[lmh]

If you are buying something this expensive, the manufacturers should be falling over themselves to offer to run a test sample for you. Set up a suitable test (things you are interested in, and find a blank matrix in which they can be measured) and ask the manufacturers to do some sort of limit of quantification check.

Be careful to make sure the manufacturers all run the same method on the same samples (as far as possible). You want to test the instruments rather than the ingenuity of the demo chemist in improving your chromatography! Also be careful how they process and report the results (to make things as comparable as possible).

I am completely unaware of any neutral website offering genuinely reliable advice. Manufacturers are obviously going to claim the benefits of their own instruments, and even in this website, people will defend to the death the instrument they have bought; very few people are in a position to compare all the newest instruments head-to-head. You need to assemble your own data.

[aldehyde]

Haha let them do whatever they want to your method, then once they've optimized it have the other vendors re-run your sample with your new method .

But yeah, lmh is right, make the sales department do their job (for once haha).

[Gaetan Glauser]

Have you considered asking for a test on the API 5500 as well? The competition is more between API 5500, TQ-S and 6490...

I don't really trust the companies when you send a test sample and they send you back the results. Ideally you should be present when they analyse your samples. I am afraid that, unless you find access to all intruments, you won't be able to get an objective view of their performances.

I did compare a few months ago an API 5500 and a Xevo TQ. The API 5500 was 5-10 times more sensitive on my compounds. But I was told the TQ-S is much more sensitive than the Xevo TQ...

[guira]

I think that the companies will never make it, but It would be extremely useful to define a 'test' which could be run on every system for every user. Let's say for example, to inject 1 uL of a XX ppb standard in ESI+/- to monitor a defined transition at a flow rate of X in a c18 column.
Having a number of results of the tests on different systems by differnt users would be quite useful to compare them.

[macgyver]

Just to add to the mix, you might be interested that Shimadzu has just released (last month) a new triple quad - the LCMS-8030.

[Ken]

I think depending on how much budget you have, then you can start from the instrument type on the amount you can afford.

Otherwise, there is always competition in the market proving they're the best in the market, and the price will varies.

Thus, I think in order for you to qualify them:

i) Yes, run your samples prepared at the same time using the same set of parameter ie HPLC conditions, column and sent to the various vendors.

ii) If possible, set the criteria for evaluation ie positive or negative ionisation, s/n with 3 std dev at a concentration range, say 1ppb in blank sample matrices

iii) Robustness of instrument

Other than that, I think you need to consider whether you really need to have 'that much sensitive instrument' for your applications ~ If you don't need such highly sensitive instrument, you can make do with a lower price to 'save your budget'

Remember, sensitivity comes with a price ! Not in term of hard cold cash but also 'contamination issues, false positive, etc' ^^

[hfredricks]

Just throwing another option in there, have you considered the Thermo triple quads? we have a TSQ Vantage and its doing great work here, coupled to an agilent HPLC/UPLC. The lab next door is just about to buy another one. I have no real experience of the other QQQs out there, but I like the Thermo guys for customer service and tech support - in my eyes that's almost as important as the machine itself....

[Me2u]

I have comparable quotes on Agilent LC-MS 6460 & Waters TQD for studies on food safety. I wish to know the better option in terms of user-friendliness, competence of the engineers, technical support, robustness of machine & consumables required. Can anyone help?

[hermo71]

Why don't you consider also a Thermo TSQ Vantage. Last month I made a demo on pesticides and mycotoxins in food matrix with:

- Waters UPLC Acquity+Xevo TQ
- Agilent UHPLC 1290 + 6460
- Sciex 5500+Shimadzu UFLC Nexera
- Thermo UHPLC Accela 1250+TSQ Vantage

I wanted to evaluate: sensitivity, dynamic range, reproducibility and UHPLC Performance.

Waters and Agilent went soon out of the games, as they were al least 10 times less performant than Thermo and Sciex in real matrix (tobacco, coffee, etc..).
Vantage and 5500 were very similar, but at the end I decided for two TSQ Vantage as:

- less expensive with the same results
- high resolution SRM (better than 5500 in really hard matrix)
- UHPLC of the same brand

[guira]

From the demos I've seen I find that the 'best' MS are the 5500 and the Xevo-TQ-S. It's really hard to find specific applications that can only be developed by onwe of these two..
And you're right, at the end it's just a matter of personal preferences (software, prev. experience..) and budget.

than all for your really helpful replies!!

[DanielS]

We are also going to purchase a new QQQ system. We narrowed it down to the QTRAP 5500 or the TSQ Vantage system.

I was wondering if anyone here uses the QTRAP 5500 system in nanoflow. Is it difficult to obtain a stable spray with this system?

We have 4 QTRAP 4000 systems. Unfortunately it is impossible for us to operate the instruments in nanoflow. The problem is that we never
get a stable spray for more than a couple of runs. I contacted several other labs and they have the same problem. Therefore, I was wondering if the QTRAP 5500 instrument has the same problem in nanospray.