Instrument advice

Discussions about GC-MS, LC-MS, LC-FTIR, and other "coupled" analytical techniques.

5 posts Page 1 of 1
We recently acquired another mass spec and it's an entire system, Shimadzu UHPLC with API 4000. We are intending to not use this LC and put an Agilent 1200 series in it's place to basically match our other instruments. I'm for that because we have people who can maintain Agilents with their eyes closed. But after thinking about it I don't know, I've never used a Shimadzu. I guess my question is, is there anything this Shimadzu might be able to do that would make replacing it a mistake? I don't even know the model yet but will be finding out very soon.
If it's a Nexera, it's a decent UHPLC, with a high upper pressure limit, low carry-over, good range of injection volumes, and a high range of flow-rates, but Agilent are just as good, so there may not be much to choose between the system you're rejecting and its replacement. Shimadzu spares can be frighteningly expensive, and if you have technical people biased strongly towards Agilent maintenance, and you're stocking Agilent spares, there's a good case for sticking to Agilent.
The main thing a Shimadzu instrument can do for you is scare the living daylights out of your Agilent representative next time you're getting quotes, because it's a good competitor. If you go into a purchase situation where it's very clear which manufacturer will win, you can expect to pay 40% more than in a genuinely competitive tender.
There are advantages to buying only one vendor as mentioned above for not needing to handle so many spare parts/consumables. We standardized on Agilent many years ago, but now have a Thermo HPLC in house from a recent lab aquisition. It does make more headaches trying to have extra consumables handy.
The past is there to guide us into the future, not to dwell in.
lmh wrote:
If it's a Nexera, it's a decent UHPLC, with a high upper pressure limit, low carry-over, good range of injection volumes, and a high range of flow-rates, but Agilent are just as good, so there may not be much to choose between the system you're rejecting and its replacement. Shimadzu spares can be frighteningly expensive, and if you have technical people biased strongly towards Agilent maintenance, and you're stocking Agilent spares, there's a good case for sticking to Agilent.
The main thing a Shimadzu instrument can do for you is scare the living daylights out of your Agilent representative next time you're getting quotes, because it's a good competitor. If you go into a purchase situation where it's very clear which manufacturer will win, you can expect to pay 40% more than in a genuinely competitive tender.



Good idea! I don't know what to do with it but maybe just letting it sit on that extra space on a bench in the HPLC lab might be a good idea. I was told today the new 1290 has been ordered. I also told the director if he doesn't know what to do with it let me know what he wants for it.
James_Ball wrote:
There are advantages to buying only one vendor as mentioned above for not needing to handle so many spare parts/consumables. We standardized on Agilent many years ago, but now have a Thermo HPLC in house from a recent lab aquisition. It does make more headaches trying to have extra consumables handy.


That is by far the biggest reason for not putting it into service.
5 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

In total there are 13 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 12 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 234 on Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:33 am

Users browsing this forum: MrGC and 12 guests