Selecting a triple quad LC/MS system

[Kostas Petritis]

From the numbers you are giving you imply that the Agilent 6410 is 5 to 16 times more sensitive than the API 3200. Is that what you trying to claim?

[wuwei_online]

We have no data for compare API 3200 to Agilent 6410, fro we transfered API 3200 to another group last year. All the data will just compare API3200/Agilent 6410 to API 4000. For it's 10~20 time between API 4000 and 3200, and it's 2 times between API 4000 and Agilent 6410. For we have 5 set of API 4000, and there are 2~3 times sensitivity between API 4000s.

[Loekie]

wuwei are your 5000 manufactured in Singapore? how is the quality and support from there?

[Ken]

Hi Wuwei, I have actually done a direct comparison test using plasma samples with both Agilent 6410B - with additional turbo pump - supposingly to enhance performance of the system and compared the data with an API 3200.

For the record, the API 3200 performed better in term of sensitivity to Agilent's ie sensitivity at app 2X better than the revised newer version of Agilent 6410B.

I am not sure why you are claiming that Agilent performs better in term of sensitivity; perhaps we can share more information on this?

Also, we have a 4000Qtrap as well and direct comparison to the 3200 series showed that it's approximately 10X better than the 3200. So, I am really curious why the system performance at your side is so contrast to mine.

[wuwei_online]

Hi, Ken,

We have a set of Agilent 6410 A - without the additional turbo pump, we have tried of a lot of method between Agilent 6410 and API 4000, and we have the conclustion that the sensitivity for Agilent 6410A is very closed to API 4000 (er have tested about 15 compound).

For the signal height, Agilent seems have the very differece between API 4000, but for S/N, it's very closed. Also, we will set the δEMV form 400 to 1500(? balance the S/N) to increase the signal. That's very hepful to improve the sensitivity (Maybe will cause the potential damage to detector)

Ken, do you set the δEMV? If yes, dose Agilent's engineer give you some suggestion for the potential damage?

Thanks in advance.

[wuwei_online]

Hi, Loekie

I'm in China, the support form AB seems dissatisfied to us even though we have near ten sets of API 4000/Q/5000/3000/3200, especially after AB released the acquired news.

All API 5000 in our Lab was shipped from Canada, the quality seems very well and deserve the price gap between API 4000 and API 5000.

[Ken]

Hi Wuwei, you mentioned that you're not satisfied with the support? But I heard that ABI has one of the more extensive coverage of support for the China market; how come?

I did set the offset on the EMV to increase the sensitivity but not as much as yours so that I can prolong the lifetime of the detector. Yeah, you are right, offsetting the detector will decrease the lifetime which is why I am not offsetting it that much.

There isn't any suggestion from the engineer because if you want to offset, than you will get increase sensitivity at the expense of shorter lifetime of the detector; so, I will have to accept that.

That's why Agilent is lacking here ; we need to offset the detector so that we can increase the signal to noise ratio; also, I dont find it more sensitive than my 3200 because I dont need to offset anything for that system.

Also, you mentioned that the 4000 and the 6410 is very similiar in term of sensitivity ; I tested the 6410B and 3200 side by side and my conclusion is that the 3200 is 2x better than the 6410B.

What I did during the evaluation is :

1) S/N for the LLOD and LLOQ
2) Reproducibility and repeatibility with accuracy studies across 5 replicates of injections
3) If you also test the system on the negative mode; you will be able to see much clearly which system performs better.

I didnt test it on my 4000 knowing that my 4000 is approximately 10X better than my 3200 from the tests that I have done so far on the systems.

Cheers !!!

[matthew]

Gia' is right, but there are other issues to consider for those in academia... e.g. budget constraints, user-base and benchspace. For example, I'd give Thermo a call just because of the (smaller) real estate that the TSQ uses.

Hi Ken, Wuwei,

Are you both comparing apples to apples (wrt analytes)? I ask as a big fan of ABI, but someone who purchased a 6410A because of (academic) cost constraints. I'm quite happy with Agilent's instrument, but I will still be open minded when I outfit my own lab in the coming years.

Also, although LLOD/LLOQ are the end-all concerns, it might also be helpful to reconsider your own workflow. I train my instrument by writing scripts to test the optimal conditions for any given analyte; I'm under the impression that ABI's Analyst does this for you(?). Thermo's software offers a lot of power, but it might annoy undergrads or techs.

Finally, I have myself to chat with as an Agilent QQQ owner (and I'm in one of the largest cities in the US). ABI has 20-30 instruments on campus and hence a monthly user group meeting. The geometries are a bit different (though the source is Agilent's) and I don't bother attending.

[vishal_aes]

Thanks guys, I was away for a litdtle while and on return I am overwhelmed with the respose to my post. In the meantime, Agilent is offering to give me the ultimate 6460 instead of thier upgraded 6410BA. From what I get, they have sold around 30 systems till now. I may be the first one in India, depending on if and when I order. They have also upgrded their specs of s/n to 1000:1. I can understand how mathew feels being alone in an non-agilent environment.

I am aslo little sckeptical with making such a huge investment in a system which would well be one of the first in the country. But I think the claims made by agilent for their 6460, the comapny's record and the pricing offered in the range of 6410BA should make 6460 a decent buy. Any data on 6460 vs abi 3200, 4000 or 5000 or waters tqd ??

[sindhu]

When you buy a system first time in the country definetely you get a very attractive price. But Agilent software doesnt have 21CFR Part 11 complaince and working in reputed lab(AES Labs) you can never compromise on these things. Secondly you always look to thier after sales support and thier expestise to keep the system up when you require that. When they have not sold any system then how can you judge thier capabilities.

Same the case with TQD from waters as they have not sold thier systems plenty. I am not sure are they sold any system for your application?.Even I am afraid their quality of after sales support which is most critical in our day to day life.

I sincerely suggest you to look into ABI 3200 Trap and recently they have released Analyst 1.5 version software which contains scheduled MRM's which is very useful for analysing pestcide residues & antibiotic analyses.

I strongly say that its a rugged & good system and its price is competitive too.

Finally I feel US 50K difference is not very high when you are going to invest on a very good , quality & rugged system . I am sure you can convince your management for the price difference.

Good luck

[giacomo56]

If you are indeed the first one to get a new system from a company...let me give you a piece of advise that I have found to be true......Whenever a company sells a "first time instrument" they will go above and beyond to make you successful...they want to establish a beachhead in the country.

Also, the reputation that Agilent has, is unmistakenly...they make good products and have turned the LC/MS market upside down.....that is why most of the worlds has seen prices drop from all the rest because of the acceptance of the Mass Spec community for Agilent products.

The orthogonal spraying is an Agilent patent ( not the others ) that's why everyone elses has to use off-axis spraying...the Chip Cube....Agilent first.....Jet Stream Technology another leap.....overall not a bad company or instrument....and yes I have Agilent equipment....and biased.

[CE Instruments]

The orthogonal spraying is an Agilent patent

?? Thought the VG Bio-Q and Quattro feature Orthogonal spraying back in the early 90s. Patents can be broken, Thermo had the Ion trap patents but Brucker/HP flaunted them, were told off but settled out of court. HP can pressurise anyone as they own the patents to capillary chromatography, never enforced fortunately