Which GC/MS/MS is better? Varian 320/325 or Agilent 7000B

[camino]

Hello,

We are looking to buy a new GC/MS/MS for analysis of residues of pesticides in fruits.

We actually have two Varian 1200 triple quadrupoles, and sincerelly they are very bad instruments.

We are thinking to change radically and buy the new Agilent 7000, but we don't known anybody who is working with it. And we have no references working in routine analysis. Is someone is working with it, please tell me!!

Today the Varian's representant was here and he told us about the new Varian 325 mass spectrometer. He said us that it is better than 7000, and have new improvement over the 320, getting most sentivity and less maintenance needed.

Other reason to choose Varian, is that the method is applicable from the old 1200 to the new 325. But I'm very tired about Varian...

As surelly you known Agilent has bought Varian, and one of the two mass spectrometers will disappear. Which of them will be???? The Varian 325 was presented in October 09, and the 320 was widelly sold, and the Agilent 7000 there is few ones sold.

Please tell me what you think about!!!!

[Loekie]

Why not go for one of the other manufacturer instruments?

[Ron]

I don't expect the Varian GC and GCMS to survive long ofter the Agilent deal closes. You said the 1200s are not good, just one more reason to kill off the Varian line.

[Isolde]

Our lab are also analysing pesticides in fruits and we have a Varian 1200. We also have Waters triple quad and I think that Varian have better sensitivity and are easier to maintain than Waters, though Varians software is really bad.
I have limited experience of Thermos triple quad, the sensitivity seems at least as good as Varians, and their software also seems better than Varians, but there were problems with reproducibility. I have heard rumours about Agilents triple quad, it seems that it can't handle as many transitions as is in our methods, but I have no experience of this myself.

[danicrd]

in our lab we have one 1200 and one 320MS.
Altough the sensitivity on 320ms was little improved generally performance of ms are better than 1200. More stable, some problem of 1200 resolved (example: ion volume positioning with probe)
Some defect remains the same (electronic board problem, lenses sometimes doesn't work well)
Conclusion: 1200 is bad, bad machine but we are satisfied of 320
I hope this help

[seaox]

I have to take exception to much that has been said regarding the Varian 1200 systems. I currently have 2 in my lab and am planning on buying the 320 version very soon. I have used and managed a lot of GC/MS/MS systems (quads and traps) over the years from Thermo, Agilent, Hewlett Packard (before they were Agilent) as well as Varian and I have found the Varians to be an excellent instrument. We also have their Saturn MS/MS system. In addition we have the 320 LC/MS/MS systems. Sensitivity of the GC/MS/MS is far superior to the MSD systems. Software is software and is always subject to personal preference. It does exactly what I want it to do in analyzing and reporting data. I prefer it to Chemstation in simplicity and intuitiveness. Features such as changing ion volumes without pulling the source allows me to keep my source clean without disrupting my day. I have talked extensively to Agilent engineers, CEO's from both companies and marketing people from Agilent as well as Varian and there is one continuous message from both: Varian's products will not die but will be integrated with Agilent products to create better instruments then both companies were able to produce prior to this acquisition. There is no doubt there is a great respect on Agilents part for Varians products and engineering. The messages being circulated by some frightened Agilent reps is doing a disservice to both companies and should be taken with a grain of salt. I am very excited about what the future is offering. I would recommend the Varian instruments without hesitation. If you need a GC/MS/MS instrument you would be foolish not to consider Varian's products. Remmember Agilent only started offering an MS/MS in the last 2 years. That does not make it a better instrument. My colleagues around the country (as well as Agilent engineers) have intimated to me that Agilent is having problems with both their hardware and software on this new GC/MS/MS. They are not to be faulted for that alone but neither should one jump at their product line only because it has the Agilent brand. Varian's service is exceptional in my territory and that means a lot to me. I cannot say the same for Agilent. That is one aspect of their company that must change. The MSD is a hard working instrument with few problems. But this same instrument has been in production since the early 80's. I would hope by now they would have no issues. But it is what it is and there are limitations. I also have a number of Agilent instruments in my lab including MSD's and have found them to be very good as well. No complaints. In the end, like a musician, if you can't play the tune, don't blame the instrument.

Seaox

[Pepter]

Re up:
Sponsored by Varian.

[seaox]

Nay; just a different point of view then yours. My experiences with the Varian 1200 has been good ones. My work can be as tough as it comes in routine analysis. I need a lot of sensitivity as well as versatility. These instruments deliver. I subject them to lots of derivatized samples and expect them to see sub-nanogram/mL concentrations in complex matrices. I run about 50 samples a day through each instrument. I use them for CI and MS/MS analysis. My data is scrutinized by the legal system as well as peers in my business. QC has to be tight. They do the job.
Thats my experience.
Seaox

[vestelshirley]

The Bruker guy came by my lab yestgerday - touting the gc-triple quad sold to them by Agilent - the 320ms. He worked for Varian. I just wonder what Bruker has in store for this product line?

[ChromatographyDude]

Hopefully great things are in store for this product... I have used a Varian 1200L for a little over a year now and must say it's a great mass spectrometer. Very sensitive & accurate.

From what I've heard of the Bruker acquisition of the triple quadrupole, it will only be used as a GC-MS system for now. The 1200L system we have comes with both an EI/CI source as well as electrospray for interfacing to our LC as needed. I hope in time the Bruker 320MS can work with both GC & LC. I think the design & certainly appearance of this MS is a step above.

[vestelshirley]

I asked the bruker-guy (ex-varian) why they didn't make the triple quad switchable from gc to lc and he kinda smiled and said they were working on it. That would be nice - targeting a market that is small but diverse.

[yangz00g]

Seems you have no choice

The one from Thermo is very, very bad.

How bad it could be? Because of it, I decided not to buy or recommend any instrument from this company in the future!

[che313]

We have agilent 7000A and I used it for drug of abuse analysis.
Its software MassHunter is easy and friendly but have some bugs.
The method easly build. Maintaince and parts are similar to 5975.

[trozen]

The one from Thermo is very, very bad.

do you mean TSQ Quantum GC?
could you please comment on what is bad?

[yangz00g]

The one from Thermo is very, very bad.

do you mean TSQ Quantum GC?
could you please comment on what is bad?

Yes, TSQ Quantum GC.

The biggest lesson from this purchase is never buy any first generation instrument.

Almost everything from transfer line, ion source, to Q0 to control board have been changed at least twice in two years. And all of them have been upgraded at least once, we are like a trial facility for Thermo. Backflush was put in, and removed later. Thermo couln't find a people knowing this instrument well at the beginning. The service engineer knew no more than we do. Instrument down time >50%........Never worker truble free for over two months, the service engineer comes in at least one week a month on average...