Chromatography Forum

Interesting comparisons...and from this you can deduce how the new systems perform:

The S/N achieved (purchase year):
Waters Alliance dualwavelength (1996): 65
Waters Alliance DAD (1999): 54
Dionex Summit (2003): 36
Agilent 1100 (1999): about 20
Aquiety (2008): just a hint of a peak (S/N < 3)


You tested instruments from 1996 to 2008....and not the two instruments that this collegue is asking about.....have them both come in and evaluate it for yourself....

Hi Giacomo,

How is the following message to be interpreted?

...have them both come in and evaluate it for yourself....

Am I right in understanding it like this; you have both systems available and you’ve done some testing/comparisons, but you don’t want to tell us what your observations/conclusions are, so that we arrive to our own conclusions?
But you see, the original poster i.e. Hollow, asked exactly that; whether there were some colleagues having any experiences with Agilent 1290 and potentially in comparison with the Acquity system.
So, please share your data (or just selected figures) that illustrate some critical differences and let us decide whether we find them credible or not. Per default, I trust people’s observations and usually focus on the interpretations and the conclusions. And I believe many on this forum will concur with me in this way of thinking.

Best Regards

Hi Danko,

I was merely saying that you cannot judge todays instruments by the data collected from earlier instruments....that comparison is bogus, there have been made alot of new and exciting inroads by the developmentt of new HPLC systems.

I have seen some data from both vendors, but I wouldn't like to expound my judgement on someone elses decission, that being said, i do like some of the features that the Agilent has, compared to the Aquity, BUT again that is my opinion.

That is why I proposed that the original poster "Hollow" of this thread should invite both vendors for a "face-off", it is done all of the time. If "Hollow" wants to remain with one data system then why go thru the evaluation all together if he doesn't feel bringing a second data system into his lab is relevent, he's wasting the vendor time. If he truly is open to a new system then he should invite both to come and show what they can do. He can then report a true comparison of both systems...not someone who has done a comparison of a decade old equipment.

Let the data speak for itself (from the new systems)

Hi Giacomo,

Please excuse me for not agreeing with you on that one, but I think the comparison between older and newer instruments/systems is applicable enough. As you stated yourself: “Let the data speakâ€

Sorry, I forgot to mention why I'm still interested in the pro&cons of the two systems, although my decision was already made.

As told in my previous post we're using three Waters systems on Empower in our lab and would like to get the Acquity since almost two years...
(Back then one decided to go on with a two supplier strategy, one lab stays with Waters and get Agilent in the other lab for the replacement of their old equipment.)

Now again, we have got a good offer for the Acquity, but instead of saying "ok, buy it now" some of the approval person just brought the 1290 into discussion and hm, how should I say, the whole thing went to a very political game with few basis to real lab work...

So I just wanted to hear some oppinions and experinces from other users, what in their work are the pros or drawbacks of the two systems.

If everyone would have said "I like the 1290 more cause of the higher pressure and flowrate, it really makes a difference in our lab" or as "adeputy" said, he like the new mixer, then maybe I would have opened my mind and got back to a real evaluation of the two systems incl. a demo of the 1290.

Giacomo, please feel free to tell us your personal opinion of the two systems. What do you like/dislike on these systems. Which system gives you the more valuable data or which one fits better to a dedicated field e.g. routine vs. development?

And so far: Thank you all for your comments, done or in future.

There is no doubt the Acquity has set a good standard for UHPLC dedicated systems, it's a tremendous instrument.

From my point of view as an Agilent employee what makes the 1290 more comprehensive in my opinion is that the flow/pressure combination you have on it means that you can run 2.1, 3 OR 4.6mm UHPLC columns. Waters for example have just launched some great 3mm i.d. 1.7um columns that would work very well on the 1290. Keeping the i.d. on the larger side typically gives better performance as Waters have demonstrated with their new 3mm columns Vs their 2.1mm columns but of course these need more flow delivery.

You can also get more out of the new superficially porous column such as the Phenomonex Kinetex, Supelco Ascentis Express, AMT Halo and Agilent PoroShell columns, as these can achieve higher flow rates (even 3 or 4ml/min on a 2.1mm) without too much pressure, this gives you either very fast runs or you can use to create more efficient separations.

As Rob Burgess pointed out sensitivity is also a factor worthy of consideration. I guess simply because of the more modern design and innovative new technology , the 1290 detector provides more sensitive than anything else out there as well.


Adam ~ Agilent Technologies

The S/N achieved (purchase year):
Waters Alliance dualwavelength (1996): 65
Waters Alliance DAD (1999): 54
Dionex Summit (2003): 36
Agilent 1100 (1999): about 20
Aquiety (2008): just a hint of a peak (S/N < 3)

That reminds me an interesting poster I saw earlier the year. A comparison study of impurity determination using Waters Acquity, Agilent 1200 RRLC and Dionex UltiMate RSLC systems. I remember that the authors found that some impurities can't be detected on their Acquity system, while the best results showed surprisingly the UltiMate RSLC system. As far as I remember the poster was from a Swedish pharmaceutical company.

FIZ.......Can I please correct you..... that table came from Mattias at the very beginning of this thread..... not my observations.

FIZ.......Can I please correct you..... that table came from Mattias at the very beginning of this thread..... not my observations.

Ups, yes, you're right.

One important parameter to look at is the system volume. The Acquity is only UPLC. It has a system volume of around 100µL. I do not know what it is for the 1290.

I also do not know how the 1290 works but if you want to do conventional HPLC with HPLC columns and injectionvolumes up to 100µl and higher flow rates I can imagine that the systemvolume is bigger and this will negatively affect the UPLC performance of that system.

"rnuijts" asked about delay volume and earlier questions were asked about configurable delay volumes - maybe I can answer these.

I have used the Agilent 1290 Infinity LC quite often over the last few months working with clients in my job as an independent analytical consultant. This has included beta prototypes and the production units now installed on many sites. I am doing a lot of UHPLC/Method Transfer training courses with clients (next one tomorrow in London on a 1290 installed by Agilent today!). Taking into account the delay volume is important for successful method transfer.

The 1290 Infinity in its standard setup has 125 μL delay volume from the mixing point in the binary pump, through the autosampler to the column and so is comparable to the figure that you quote for the Acquity. However, you can automatically switch out the flowpath through the variable volume autosampler when the injection is made so that the system volume comes down to about 55 μL. (Tick the relevant box in the autosampler setup). This is what I do for very fast gradients on narrow bore columns.

The pump includes a static mixer - called the Jet weaver. This puts the flow through a 3D network of microfluidic channels somehow created in a small square metal plate which does the required mixing with a volume of only 45 μL. The same device has a 100 μL mixer on the reverse side of the plate and it takes about 40 seconds to switch it over. The intention is to put the larger volume in place when mixing is a problem - e.g. TFA additive and UV detection. I tried this out with a TFA method but to be honest I saw so little mixing noise even with the smaller mixer that the larger one proved unnecessary - nice to know it's there though for when the going gets tough. I also like the fact that there is a continual readout of pressure ripple on the control screen, it gives added confidence that the performance is as good as the baseline looks.

If you run with MS and no UV then you can bypass the JetWeaver and have only 10 μL delay volume. I have not tried this myself yet but talking to MS chemists from the Agilent demo lab they say they have run like this successfully with their 1290 on triple quad and QTOF. When I get a 1290 on my SQ I will try it.

So to recap, delay volume when using the 1290 Infinity LC: 125 μL or 55 μL if required.

Thank you Rob for your field report about the delay volume an its reducing/switching.

What feature do you value most or what would you want to be improved?

May I ask what software you are using with the 1290?
Chemstation or EZChrom or some others?


PS: still no purchasing decision have been made...

The other part of "rnuijts" question: can you do conventional HPLC as well as UHPLC. Answer: yes, with the 1290 Infinity you can run up to 5ml/min if needed. You probably don't want to go that fast with conventional LC (e.g. 5um, 4.6mm, 100-250mm) but 2ml/min is often used and the 1290 will do that at up to 1200bar if you really want to. You would be more likely to see those pressures with smaller particles though (or a blocked 5um ). If you routinely want to inject 100 μL but still have capability for some UHPLC then you are probably more in 1200RRLC territory with pressure up to 600bar and up to 5ml/min.

Another observation that you might be interested in:

In some work with a pharmaceutical company I was asked to see if the 1290 Infinity LC could give good reproducibility on very small volume injections. This was for compound library checking where the concentrations were often too high for UV determination with normal injections. The current UHPLC could not reproducibly do this. The goal was to go down to 0.1 ul injected. The lowest published spec on the 1290 is for 1 ul injected with typically <0.7%RSD (<0.25% 5-20uL). The variable volume injector gives as good precision as a fixed loop but I was sceptical that it could beat double figure %RSD down at 0.1ul (afterall this is not supposed to be a nanoLC system!) I was amazed to get low single figure %RSD for 10 and for 100 injections of 0.1uL. Stunning performance. [ email me if you want to know the actual number and you would have to check it works for your method. HP/Agilent were always conservative with specs and I don't want to be accused by Agilent of setting a new target spec for them but this is a seriously good piece of kit]. Edit: See updated comment below

Hollow,
I most often use 1290 with ChemStation but have also used with MassHunter when on higher end MS (QQQ, QTOF). The control functionality is essentially the same (minor cosmetic layout differences) and very easy to use on both those s/w. The same will almost certainly apply to EZChrom as Agilent promote the use of RC.NET device drivers hence the similarity. (Like device drivers for printers, they appear the same whether called from Word or Excel or whatever s/w). However, I am not sure if the drivers were released yet for EZChrom, you would need to ask Agilent or check their website.

“What feature do you value most or what would you want to be improved?â€