Chromatography Forum

Hey There

So we are starting to think about acquiring a software program to help us implement more of a Quality By Design approach into our methods development.

As I understand it there are three primary companies that are selling QbD software: DryLab, ACD, and Chromsword.

So I wanted to ask: Has anyone had any experience with any of these programs? And based on your experiences would you offer a 'Thumbs Up' or a 'Thumbs Down'?

Any feedback would be of interest.

Thanks! Adam

Another one to consider that I've seen in publications and application notes is Fusion QbD. The website is http://www.smatrix.com.

Yeah - we use Fusion, integrated w/ Empower.
You input paramaters (many, many parameters) and it spits out a complete set of sample set methods for you to execute, then it provides contour plots defining the spaces in which your method can/will most reliably meet your parameters.

Hi All

I just wanted to try "re-booting" this question, once more.

I thought a lot of folks were looking into this lately. Any other experiences to share?

Much Thanks!

I had always heard a lot about Dry Lab. Interesting that no one has mentioned that one.

Is anyone using Dry Lab, that might want to comment on it.

Thanks

I just want to add what I know:
1/ Cost for Galaxie with S-Matrix was 15K.
2/ Cost for Dry Lab was 30K (one user). There are some modules to add or omit.
All numbers are from my best recollection.
Alfred

I'm not familiar with Chromsword, but did look into Drylab, Fusion, and ACD Autochrom a couple years ago (so some of my recollections might be out of date). They all have their good points so it really depends on what kind of information you want from the software. In other words, how do you expect the software to help you with Quality by Design?

Drylab and (I believe) ACD use parametric modeling (they fit the data to a theoretical model) whereas Fusion uses empirical modeling. Parametric modeling should give you better models in fewer runs, but it's a big question in my mind how many real world separations don't fit the theoretical models for one reason or another. I think empirical modeling with Fusion is more flexible and can give you a more rigorous statistical analysis but it takes more work and the model may not be as good as the best parametric model. The modeling done by Drylab seemed very “black box” to me, in contrast to Fusion which is very transparent. From what I remember Drylab could not interface with Empower so all sample sets and instrument methods had to be built manually (but I think it can interface with some other CDS'). Fusion can do all of that automatically (with some limitations) and that was a big selling point. I think ACD had project management and knowledge management tools that looked good but I never actually tried them out.

I doubt any approach works 100% of the time. S-Matrix claims their Rapid Development scheme works 80% of the time. I don't have enough experience to confirm or deny that, but I would be surprised if Drylab or ACD worked significantly better than that. The questions to ask are how much those 80%'s overlap and which one includes more of your typical separations. I believe they all offer free trials.

Hope that helps.

Hey Folks

This thread was started (by yours truly) six long years ago.

But in the last year or two Analytical QBD has really been heating up. So I thought it was worth dusting this off and asking if anyone has recently evaluated any of these software programs for developing chromatography methods, in a manner consistent with QBD requirements.

Much thanks in advance for sharing any thoughts or experiences.