Thanks a lot for your information.
My lab has an Agilent GC-FID/ECD now and we have methods developed on this platform with accurate and reproducible results. So we know Agilent's performance for my existing methods that do not require very high sensitivity.
How do you compare the performance of the Shimadzu and Agilent analyzers?
If the prices are so enormously different, I should phone up the Shimadzu salesperson to understand further.
Very grateful for your comments.
We had to choose an high sensitivity ECD for PCB and halogenated solvents in traces (my lower point of calibration must be 20 ppb of Aroclors) and i compared this application from agilent:
http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/app ... 6236EN.pdf
with a 20 ppb standard of Aroclor 1221 (is the lower response aroclor) i sent to shimadzu. The peak height of the major peaks for quantitation was impressive (and still is after we bought the gc), Agilent uses single congeners at 10 ppb to demostrate the quality of their detector, i can analyze 20 ppb of Aroclor (with single congener concentration way lower than 10 ppb) without any problem using Aroclor 1221 which has the lower amount of chlorine among all aroclors.
My personal opinion is that Agilent focused on mass spectrometers, this is probably why they have the best on the market at a reasonable price.
But as i already said, they tried to sell me a simple ECD+FID at the same price they would sell a singleq/trap GC/MS, i spent about half to have the same or probably slighty better performance on ECD.
I never really compared agilent's FID vs Shimadzu's FID since i couldn't care less about sensitivity, i only use it for samples with medium to high concentration in solvents. The only thing i can say is that it has a good reproducibility and seems to detect lower amounts than my old Varian 3380 FID (which wasn't bad at all).
Anyway the better thing to do is to compare instrument by sending them your samples, and if the performances are comparable look at the price.
Good luck!