GC/MS systems

[Adamcon8]

We are currently in the process of purchasing a new GC/MS system. We have decided that our top three systems are Thermo Sci (Trace 1310 with ISQ MS), Shimadzu (GCMS QP2010 Ultra), and Bruker (436 GC/Scion SQ). I was just wondering about everyone's experience with these instruments and what would be the better preference? Which instrument would stand out better?

Thanks for the advice!

Adam

[tlahren]

Just curious,

Why are you not considering Agilent?

[Adamcon8]

We are. I just hadn't met with them yet. I met with them recently and we are considering them.

[MSCHemist]

I prefer Agilent mainly because it is all I've ever worked with. I am familiar with all the parts and how to service and troubleshoot the instrument.

I think the parent lab at my company recently bought a Thermo Trace.

[tlahren]

I've mostly had Agilent systems as well. Right now though I have and Agilent 6890/5973 system and a 6890 with a new 5975C system and a Thermo Trace GC with Sector HRMS. I have had nothing but trouble with the Thermo GC. I do not like the Thermo GC. Apparently the 1300 series instruments are a lot different (better), says one of my Thermo engineers. They have done away with a lot of failed technology that I am still dealing with now on my older (4 year old) Trace GC. I have recently had silly problems with my TriPlus autosampler as well. I just found out that they don't sell that anymore either. They now make a different one.

As MSChemist said, I also prefer Agilent because of the familiarity and ease of maintenance. Also, in my part of the USA, Agilent service and support is better that any other company I have seen. I have heard contrary in other countries however.

Oh yeah, I can't stand using Xcalibur software either. It's not so bad for acquisition, but I don't like the data processing part. I export my data to Chemstation and process it there. That is just my preference though because I am more familiar with Chemstation.

[James_Ball]

I have also been using HP/Agilent GC/MS for over 20 years now and honestly have had very little problems from them that were the fault of the instrument itself. Right now we have four 5973 and two 5975 series running in the lab and even the oldest 5973 with a turbo high vacuum pump has never needed it replaced after 13 years. The roughing pumps they sell with them now seem a little underpowered but they do function well.

As far as software, I do prefer the MSChemstation over most other software I have had a chance to use. The newest version can be a little quirky compared to the older ones but still better than most other systems.

Most parts are also interchangeable between series, even a few source parts are compatible from 5971-5975 series. One thing I did do was convert the Electron Multiplier to the ETP one from the K&M version which solved a problem with non-linear responses which increased with increasing calibration standard concentrations( mostly a problem with volatile purge and trap analysis ).

[tlahren]

One thing I did do was convert the Electron Multiplier to the ETP one from the K&M version which solved a problem with non-linear responses which increased with increasing calibration standard concentrations( mostly a problem with volatile purge and trap analysis ).

James,

Do you like the ETP multiplier? I bought one but I haven't installed it yet. We are hoping to increase sensitivity (just a little bit) for sub-ppb PCB analysis. We also calibrate over almost 5 orders of magnitute right now (0.5 to 2000 ppb).

[aldehyde]

Agilent has a new MS coming out soon that apparently has a 2-3x sensitivity/detectability boost due to a change in the ionization chamber--the 5977A MSD. A voltage is applied to the drawout plate which focuses more ions through the source body than before, usually they just bounce off the plate and hang around in the ionization chamber.

http://www.chem.agilent.com/en-US/promo ... solve.aspx

Prior to that the 5975 added the triple axis detector, which bends the ionized material around a corner after it passes through the quadrupole so that when it interacts with the HED and EM during detection it doesn't physically pass through the stream of neutral particles and helium. This provided a nice boost in signal to noise.

During the heyday of the 5973 they introduced a more inert source material (which has been improved upon with the 5975) as well as faster electronics in the sideboard (which allow for more scans across a peak width, more data to be acquired.)

As others have said Agilent GC and MSD are both nice to work on, if treated nicely they will work for a loooong time.

[tlahren]

Agilent has a new MS coming out soon that apparently has a 2-3x sensitivity/detectability boost due to a change in the ionization chamber--the 5977A MSD. A voltage is applied to the drawout plate which focuses more ions through the source body than before, usually they just bounce off the plate and hang around in the ionization chamber.

http://www.chem.agilent.com/en-US/promo ... solve.aspx

Thanks for that info Aldehyde. I was unaware of the new MS. It looks great! However, it appears to me that they are doing away with Chemstation. They don't mention it as a software for the new 5977. They only show Masshunter and OpenLab.

[James_Ball]

One thing I did do was convert the Electron Multiplier to the ETP one from the K&M version which solved a problem with non-linear responses which increased with increasing calibration standard concentrations( mostly a problem with volatile purge and trap analysis ).

James,

Do you like the ETP multiplier? I bought one but I haven't installed it yet. We are hoping to increase sensitivity (just a little bit) for sub-ppb PCB analysis. We also calibrate over almost 5 orders of magnitute right now (0.5 to 2000 ppb).

We switched all of our 5973 and 5975 systems over to the ETP and even the semi volatile analysts said it improved the linearity. I was floored the first time I used one when the autotune tuned at around 800V. I have yet to have one just die like some of the other types have before, they just slowly lose sensitivity over time though most I have run for at least three years before replacing them. ETP even says you can try cleaning them with solvent if they become contaminated with high boiling organics but I haven't tried that yet. In the volatiles lab I calibrate from 0.5 to 200 sometimes 400ppb with no problems usually using a 0.25id column, could probably extend that with our 0.18 columns. Had one unit testing using Hydrogen carrier and the multiplier seemed to work fine with that too.

[amazhad]

Agilent has a new MS coming out soon that apparently has a 2-3x sensitivity/detectability boost due to a change in the ionization chamber--the 5977A MSD. A voltage is applied to the drawout plate which focuses more ions through the source body than before, usually they just bounce off the plate and hang around in the ionization chamber.

http://www.chem.agilent.com/en-US/promo ... solve.aspx

Thanks for that info Aldehyde. I was unaware of the new MS. It looks great! However, it appears to me that they are doing away with Chemstation. They don't mention it as a software for the new 5977. They only show Masshunter and OpenLab.

Acquisition is with Masshunter, however the interface is designed to look like MSD Productivity Chemstation so there is not a whole lot of difference there.

Data analysis can be done with MSD Productivity Chemstation or Masshunter. GCMS systems will be shipping with both software platforms because Agilent knows many may not want to migrate to Masshunter.

[tlahren]

Amazhad,

Thanks for the info!

[crazycindy]

We are currently in the process of purchasing a new GC/MS system. We have decided that our top three systems are Thermo Sci (Trace 1310 with ISQ MS), Shimadzu (GCMS QP2010 Ultra), and Bruker (436 GC/Scion SQ). I was just wondering about everyone's experience with these instruments and what would be the better preference? Which instrument would stand out better?

Thanks for the advice!

Adam

Hi! Have you purchased your new GCMS? What did you get? Thanks!

[Mdalmaijer]

I have worked with HP 5970, 5971 and 5972 as well as Varian 2100, 2200, 320 TQ GC/MS instruments and now have a Bruker 450/Scion SQ. The Varian 2100 and 2200 are ion traps that I would not recommend for a commercial lab.

The Bruker instrument is excellent - very reliable, sensitive, good acquisition rate and with a wide linear range. I don't care for method setup of the MS but once done, is not an issue. Based on my excellent experience, I am replacing two Varian 450/320 GC/MS TQ instruments with Bruker 436/Scion TQ instruments.