Chromatography Forum

Let me suggest that you ask each vendor to supply local references. Local support can make a big difference in service and support on the instruments. You can have the most wonderful instrument in the world, but if the local support is poor, for you it will be a poor instrument.

Send to the vendor samples that you know well and are difficult to run. Also give them your current instrumental conditions. (Make it a test of the instruments, not the skills of the applications chemists.) See what the vendors can do. Every vendor does a great job running standards, but real samples are a different matter.

If you can not visit the vendor's laboratories, at least have the vendor show you the software with your data.

There are other discussions on looking purchasing instrumens on this site. Browse and you may get some more ideas.

Thx for yr sugestion, Don_Hilton.

Many topics in this site are very helpful to let me easier to make a decision.

I'm taking more Concentrations on them.

Its bad idea to buy chromatograph thats not more than one year on market (newest) - software/hardware/service problems... they need time to learn their product ;D and find all the bugs and other annoying things that will ruine your work.

Thx pepter

IMO these systems can not be compared.. The waters and agilent are both triple quads were as the Thermo is an Orbitrap with a quad to do isolation..

If you need High resolution with Accurate Mass there is only one choice.. The QExactive.. If you don't need HR/AM then a standard Triplequad will do you just fine.. Maybe the Thermo Vantage or TSQ Ultra?

But best way to determine what will suit your application best is to send of samples to all possible vendors stating what you want and at what levels you need to work at.. Then let them battle it out between them

Have fun with your new system what ever it might be!

nroskus

- if your analyt is known and need to be quantified then you are looking for QqQ system like water or agailent options.
- if you want to identify & quantify then look for QTRAP or QTOF system like API 4600 or thermo option

I have 3 Models of LC-MSMS following,

1. Waters : MSD XEVO TQS

2. Agilent : LC 1290 - MSD 6490

3. Thermo : MSD Q-Exactive

Since you have mentioned also the Agilent 1290, you may also have a look to the controlling of the HPLC/UHPLC? Not every HPLC can controlled by a the special LC/MS-Software.

As user leadazide mentioned, you will compare two tripple-Quads with a Q-Orbitrap.

The respective LC/MS processing software will maybe also be important. It is not very helpfull to get the best possible MS rawdata, if your a not enabled to process it on a productive way.

Also robustness of the instrument, especially from the source is important. My personal experience is, that I have the fewest problems with atmospheric-pressure sources from Agilent.

The only real way to make up your mind is to get the vendors to demonstrate what their systems can do on realistic samples produced by you.

I'm not surprised you have an orbitrap and two tandem quad instruments. One of the main reasons for choosing the tandem MS is to add selectivity and reduce noise. Thermo have (for some years) been selling the idea of exact mass as an alternative way to add selectivity. By choosing very narrow windows for SIM, you also reduce noise (this is only possible in an instrument with good stability). The advantage that Thermo claim is that if you're working in a field where someone might ask you, retrospectively, to look for some novel compound, you can always extract a different selected ion chromatogram for whatever mass you want, but you can't add another SRM to a data-set that's already been collected. Of course the disadvantage is that accurate mass can't distinguish isomers. Were I you, I'd take the three instruments at face value for your application. If Thermo think their Orbi competes in a triple quad market, let it run the same test samples as the tandem instruments and see how it does. Of course it makes sense to include the most difficult test samples you can, so if you've got things that fragment badly, or produce non-specific fragmentations, include them to tax the triples. If you've got isobaric things, include them to tax the Orbi. Good luck. The good news is that you're looking at three top-notch instruments, so there is no bad choice!

The only real way to make up your mind is to get the vendors to demonstrate what their systems can do on realistic samples produced by you.

I'm not surprised you have an orbitrap and two tandem quad instruments. One of the main reasons for choosing the tandem MS is to add selectivity and reduce noise. Thermo have (for some years) been selling the idea of exact mass as an alternative way to add selectivity.

I know this stories too, but nowadays, there should be also a Q-Orbitrap available...
Nevertheless every One should make his own experiences wtih his original samples.

I just heard that Bruker has a new LC triple. Does any one have information about it?

Loekie

I just heard that Bruker has a new LC triple. Does any one have information about it?

Loekie

More info on this site:

http://evoqms.com/home.html

Hi nroskus!

I'm analysing the same samples and analytes that you do and I'm just a step before deciding on buying Shimadzu 8040 LCMSMS. Have you taken it into consideration?

Hi nroskus,

why you don't consider also the AB Sciex 5500? As far as I know, it's the best triple quad on the market...

I would like to thanks all advisors.

In Thailand, we have only 3 authorized dealers for Agilent, Waters and Thermo.