Quattro Micro v/s Sciex API 3000

[Rushikesh V.Vyas]

Kindly advise on better option (Technically) BETWEEN Quattro Micro and Sciex API 3000.

[fishin' addict]

Try your samples on either instrument manufacturers applications lab and make the assesment on the data produced but also try the samples on the ABI 3200 due to the different source configuration.

[prasadpvs]

Try your samples on either instrument manufacturers applications lab and make the assesment on the data produced but also try the samples on the ABI 3200 due to the different source configuration.

As a Commercial Person, I am also in same dialama as Quattro Micro they are saying equalent to API-3000 which I am not in a position to accept.

Valuable Suggestions from any Technical friend is requested.

[alealbor]

Hi Rushikesh,
Your choice is very dificult, because both systems are so bad. The best LC-MS/MS is TSQ Quantum. High resolution in MS/MS mode is a great tool for eliminates the matrix efect.


cheers


Alejandro

[MG]

Your choice is very dificult, because both systems are so bad.

The API-3000 was a fine instrument in its day (which wasn't very long ago). I'd rather have a skilled operator on a 3000 than a not-so-skilled operator on a 4000, were I to choose. I've no experience with the Quattro Micro so can't give an opinion on the original question.

[Kostas Petritis]

Why is that so MG?

I have worked with the API-300 with the pre-Analyst software so I tend to believe that every new version ought to be an improvement...
What makes the 4000 more complicated than the 3000 (I guess it is in terms of software?... or do you mean that there are not so many differences between the 3000 and 4000?).

[MG]

Kostas, I've used both models only with Analyst software, and I agree that neither is substantially more complicated to operate than the other. Actually the 4000 is slightly less complicated: no focusing ring voltage, software control of all gases, and no cables to worry about when installing the ion source. What I was trying to convey is that reasonably good results can be obtained from a 3000 with an experienced operator, while I have seen bad results from a 4000 with, umm, less-skilled operators. With the same operator, I would expect the 4000 to always win in ESI, though in APCI there is less difference. Original poster: apologies for straying off-topic.

[Kostas Petritis]

Although risking to go even further off-topic (but assuming that details like that might be of interest to other people)...

MG, did you have the chance to work with the API 5000 and if yes what degree of improvement (in sensitivity) did you observe over the API 4000? You know, we have developed a technology here, the "ion-funnel" which is a very efficient way to refocus your ion beam after the electrospray creation (which has a tendancy to disperse the ions).

Most mass spectrometry companies (i.e. Micromass, Brucker etc.) have lincenced the technology and starts to incorporate it to their instruments with an observed increase of sensitivity up to 10 fold. Applied Biosystems I guess didn't want to pay for it, so they came up with their own ion-guide device which do not seem to be a very... uhmmm... smart device, so I wonder what people see as sensitivy increase in the API 5000.

Hmmm, I guess that I should put a small disclaimer that these are personal opinions and do not reflect the opinions of the company (you never know with these IP people...)

[MG]

Kostas, sorry I have not had a chance to use an API-5000. Out of curiosity, do you know if the Finnigan triple-quads have licensed the ion-funnel technology? I've not used them either, but I've heard good things about them.

[Kostas Petritis]

MG,

No, Thermo hasn't licenced the ion-funnel technology... yet.

[MASS JOCKEY]

please let me know the aplication so that i can suggest the best suitable model to you.