Chemical Forums
General Forums => Free Chemistry Advertising, and other links offsite => Topic started by: cool_icp_ms on July 15, 2010, 06:22:00 PM
-
We have an on going discussions among which ICP-MS to buy. Both thermo and agilent sales persons are at their best and both claim they have better systems than their competitors. And this creates a confusion for us.
Has any body had hands on experience on these ICP-MS? I would really appreciate if you would jot down few things about how do you feel about your system? The ICP-MS we are considering are
1. Agilent 7700x with He mode Collision Cell System
2. Thermo X Series II with their 7%H2/He Reaction Collision Cell System
Feel free to write some objective, honest comments about the system you have used. I hope that this thread will help everybody who is considering to buy and ICP-MS.
Thanks in advance.
-
Haven't heard of thermo before....at our uni, we use agilent 700 series ICP-MS for trace metal analysis and we like em...but don't take my words for it, I may be biased. plus, i used this stuff twice....more usage to come tho.
-
You can find an answer for your problem and much more, on this site:listserv.syr.edu/archives/plasmachem-l.html
-
Get the ICP from the vendor = Thermo.
I did not flip a coin to arrive at this suggestion.
Agilent is a fine company;however, their specialty is with GC, GCMS when it comes to those chromatographs.
Thermo is a specialized vendor of ICP type instrumentation.
I guess it's the same logic you'd apply if you were choosing between a PICKUP_TRUCK from FORD or one from Lexus. The Ford F-150, dating back to 1957, has been both the precursor and trendsetter in pickup trucks--all others are imitators. Lexus is more well-known for 4 door semi-luxury sedans (so you'd want to buy a Lexus ES500 instead of a Ford Crown Victoria).
Simple fact of matter is that some companies--though they make attempts to branchout into other markets--are truly best providers of a single line of things. Inasmuchas this applies to chrom instrumentation--the same principle inheres.
Thanks.
-
We have a Perkin-Elmer ICP-OES at our lab. It's a great instrument.
-
I agree with you Mr JGK perkin elmer is agreat company i also has one , but I heard a lot about thermo
-
I would consider Bruker ICP-MS 820...
Unmatched sensitivity, simplicity, performance...
-
I have the same problem as author of the topic.
My colleques have Agilent but the software for this apparatus is very poor. Agilent uses separate files for analysis data. Bruker 820 and all former Varian apparatus have excellent soft and it uses only one complex file for all data (spectrum, cal data,calculations etc.) .
OK, Ford or Lexus but I am interested in real facts about different ICP-MS.
-
To answer the original question, you absolutely shouldn't buy any ICP-MS (or any other instrument) based only on user recommendations (although these should be a part of your evaluation). You should check out the actual performance of the available systems to see which one is most suited to your application, not just believe what the sales people say.
This means visiting the demo labs of each vendor and taking along some of the toughest samples you might have to run. Run them the way you actually work in your lab, such as trying to replicate the amount of method development time you get. Instrument vendors like to have a week or 2 to "play" with new samples and work up a method that shows their instrument in its best possible light, but this is no use to you if you have to get data back to a client in 2 days. Turn up on the day of the demo and pull some difficult samples out of your bag, and ask them to run them in front of you so you can see all the steps of developing the method. The vendor's response will tell you a lot about the confidence they have in their equipment, and running samples this way will also tell you a lot more about the actual use and performance of the instrument in your lab.
To compare the 2 vendors you mentioned (I've used ICP-MS from both these companies), I would say the main differences are in:
1) The way the collision/reaction cell removes interferences. As you said, the Agilent uses an inert cell gas (He), whereas the Thermo uses a reactive gas (H2 mix). In a clean sample, this won't make much difference, but reactive cell gases cause a lot of problems in high-matrix samples.
2) The matrix tolerance. The Agilent 7700x has a device called HMI (high matrix introduction) that dilutes the sample aerosol. It means you can run samples at 10x higher matrix level than on a non-HMI system. The Thermo also has a high matrix version, but to use it you have to switch off the plasma and change to a different sample and skimmer cone, so you can't run mixed matrix samples in the same run.
On some other points, the Thermo ICP-MS software looks good, but the Agilent MassHunter software is pretty good now as well (they also now use a single table for all data).
Agilent might have been a GC/GCMS (and LC) specialist company 15 years ago, but they have been ICP-MS market leader for years now. For your instrument you should look at the performance, reliability and support of the current products, not the history of the company.
The other ICP-MS instruments available are the PE and the Bruker (used to be Varian, until Varian was bought by Agilent). The PE uses a reaction cell (DRC) so it is not so good at removing interferences in complex samples. The Bruker doesn't have a collision/reaction cell. Evaluate all 4 systems if you want a clear picture of what's available, and if you have the time to go visit the demo labs.
Good luck.
-
I totally agree with Steadyboy.
In addition, a more powerful Agilent MassHunter software version is being launched shortly by
Agilent.
You can check this information on the following link:
http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/flyers/Public/5990_6418EN%20LR.pdf
-
.
The other ICP-MS instruments available are the PE and the Bruker (used to be Varian, until Varian was bought by Agilent). The PE uses a reaction cell (DRC) so it is not so good at removing interferences in complex samples. The Bruker doesn't have a collision/reaction cell.
...
Steadyboy,
It is true that Bruker 820 ICP-MS doesn’t have a collision/reaction cell. It uses proprietary CRI technology to remove interferences – a simple, fast and efficient technology compared to the cells.
-
Steadyboy,
Your statement 1) can be challenged… depending on the gases and matrix.
Statement 2) Bruker ICP-MS has the sample aerosol dilution (see below an explanation from Bruker ICP-MS guys).
Hey,
Bruker ICP-MS already have aerosol dilution capabilities... it is in the software. There was a sales alert a while back... maybe even back in the Varian days?? I think this is what you are asking for, right?
You don't have to 'enable' aerosol dilution on our Bruker ICP-MS instrument... it is always enabled.
We don't have settings for max dilution factor and tuning - the conditions showed in the other e-mail will give you about a 10x dilution. The tuning is exactly the same as Normal Mode, except you will see 10x less signal on the same concentration of tune solution. You could tune for less dilution factor, by increasing neb and decreasing sheath gas - I would guess that this is what Thermo do in their software.
So - if you want a 5x dilution, you aspirate tune solution, then increase sheath and decrease neb until the cps are 5x lower... same for 10x factor. The 'sum' of gas flow (sheath + neb) should stay pretty much the same.
In principle, Agilent do it the same way as Thermo do, and the same way we have done it a long ago... they have a gas that enters the line between the spraychamber and torch (Bruker call it sheath gas), they increase this gas and decrease the neb flow.
Cheers,
-
What about SPECTRO's icp-ms? Does anybody know about icp-ms or icp-oes?
-
heyyy
-
I recommend to test each ICP-MS yourself. Take unknown, mixed matrix samples (tell them the TDS and keep it around 5000ppm) and see what the apps chemist says. If they refuse to run them, or run them "later" - then you can assume they are not confident their system will handle them.
-
SteadyBoy is correct. I was a sales person with Beckman Instruments for over 10 years. Contact your sales person to set up a meeting with the regional Specialist in there regional laboratory to run your samples. No need to send them in advance. Bring your toughest and every day samples to see how the instrument performs.
Be honest with the specialist to save time when you arrive in the laboratory. Present your sample and "known" parameters to the specialist. This is not a game to see what the specialist comes up with. Your looking to buy an instrument to solve your problem not compete and say I'm a better scientist. Watch and if possible assist in the running of your samples.
If you have already run samples on a competitive instrument bring them with you. Most specialist are very professional and quite honest. Yes they are loyal to the company they are currently working for but they also know a lot about the competition and for your specific sample they may even direct you to purchasing a competitors instrument because of there attributes for your sample.
Make Your Day Great!!! :)
-
PittCon 2011 release. Bruker Aurora M90 ICP-MS.
1)Increased sensitivity spec, reduced background
2)CRI II, multi-mode for complex samples
3)Auto -aerosol dilution
4)Nitrox 500 Gas Accessory
5)Online addition of N2 & O2 via auxiliary plasma gas line
-
I have the same problem as author of the topic.
My colleques have Agilent but the software for this apparatus is very poor. Agilent uses separate files for analysis data. Bruker 820 and all former Varian apparatus have excellent soft and it uses only one complex file for all data (spectrum, cal data,calculations etc.) .
OK, Ford or Lexus but I am interested in real facts about different ICP-MS.
Yes, Bruker 820 software is very good, but new Bruker ICP-MS Aurora software has been developed even further, basically by the same team from Varian now working for Bruker.