Dear all.

I'm working for a begining company and we want to purchase some LC's for high through put RP analysis of organic compounds. Does anybody have a real great or bad experiance with certain vendors and what would you "advise". I'm also not sure on the usage of a high or low pressure gradient (H2O/ACN). Vendors say that high pressur isn't used that often. Thanks for any comments etc.

Waters Corporation makes, in my opinion the highest quality equipment with excellent customer support(and are probably the most expensive). Their software is a little complex, but just takes time to learn. Agilent(former HP) makes excellent equipment (and software that a child could operate) that is a little more simplistic in design, depending on detector(s) you choose, they would be an excellent choice as well. Stay away from their refractive index detector. Other vendors such as PE, Varian, Shimadzu etc also make excellent equipment. The major differences here are inadequate customer support. Its the end of the year, so ask for some deep pocket discounts with whomever you go with.

High pressure gradients are not used that often, because most vendors don't produce pumps that mix on the high pressure end of the pump. HP gradients are much more reproducible and I advise going with a pump that "mixes on the high pressure side of the pump" (Waters 2690)

ps. I don't work for Water's or Agilent....but I have equipment from both companies that is over 15 years old and still working superbly.

I will echo (the ever modest) chromgod's comments. (HEY, I thought I was the chromatography god!)I've been using Waters equipment for about ten years and it is in my opinion simply the best stuff going, period. You have to take good care of the equipment, but with proper care, they'll run forever. I've had an old 600E pump run for over three years between pump rebuilds - and it was run constantly and was still holding up just prior to rebuild time.

Agilent (HP) also makes very good hardware, but I don't go for their software so much. Waters Millennium 32 is a very good program with many, many useful features.

Waters equipment and service is expensive, but in my opinion, you get what you pay for.

Good Luck!

I've used Waters, HP and PE equipment and they are all excellent. Out of the three, I believe Waters was the most trouble prone, although it's been about ten years since I used their products so things may have improved. Every piece of equipment has its own advantages and disadvantages. You really have to use them for awhile to figure out their individual idiosyncracies.

Since you're in a beginning company I'll assume cost is an important issue. If that's the case, and you know your requirements well, you may be able to get a good deal on used or refurbished equipment. Beware though, this option is really only for those who know exactly what they want and are pretty handy. Used equipment is generally very inexpensive, however, it rarely comes with any technical support. If there's a problem and you can't fix it yourself, you can easily spend the money you saved on service calls. Refurbished equipment generally comes with a warranty, however, if there's a problem, the seller may require you to send the instrument back for service with the accompanying down time.

http://www.labx.com is a good place to start looking for used/refurbished equipment.

One problem with new equipment is that many of these instruments have all kinds of bells and whistles most people never use, so you're paying for unnecessary complexity. If you're doing fairly simple HPLC, you probably don't need the latest and greatest. On the other hand, no one can predict the future and one day some of those bells or whistle may come in very handy. As with investments, you may want to consider diversification as a way to hedge your bets. If you're buying several HPLC's, purchase one state-of-the-art system and maybe a couple of older systems. Stick with the name brands with proven track records. They're going to be more expensive initially, but the higher initial cost will be offset by the intangibles, such as reliability and support, over the long haul.

BTW, we have an HP1047A RI detector and I believe it's one of the best on the market.

Best Regards,

Michael Hinsberg
http://www.hinsbarlabs.com

sorry for hacking in to this discussion but every time i see "excellent equipment" and " also very good equipment".
can someone devine this: what is so excellent/also very good about theme?

High throughput? How fast is fast... If you are looking for a 5 minute cycle time, any of the systems mentioned previously will do without too many difficulties. If you want to be faster, we got to think...

In regards to Water's equipment I must agree with the "hinsbarlab" comment.
I have experienced more problems with Water's than with any of the other HPLC systems I have used. I used HP before they changed their name, Spectra Physics before they changed their name and Dionex. My experience is that Water's pumps do not always pump what they are set for and they give no indication of problems. With other manufacturers problems are easier to identify. It was also very frustrating to buy replacement parts from Waters. They expected me to know which part number was used in my system. If I wanted an outlet check valve they expected me to know the part number. I gave them pump models and they still could not identify the part number.
They faxed me a list of check valve part numbers with no way for me to identify which one was in my system. Their service people may be excellent
but I do not want to pay for a service call every time the slightest thing goes wrong with my systems.

The 20 year old Spectra Physics units are still going strong.

My personal favourites are the Dionex HPLC and Ion Exchange systems. They have a built in facility for keeping the back of the piston wet. They have PEEK systems that are fantastic to use if you have to keep changing columns to use the same equipment for many different analyses. Their on board diagnostics are great. Dionex also has excellent operator training programs. They have the best Service Contract in the market. I know
because we evaluated them all. We not only recommended service contracts for Dionex and Brinkmann equipment we specifically recommended not purchasing them from any other vendors of equipment we use. If I were spending my own money to purchase a new HPLC or HPIC I would not hesitate to go for Dionex.

Dear all,

Thanks for the input so far. I would like to answer the question given by Anonymous on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 09:12 am, about the through put. Our goal is to go towards 2 min run time. Probebly first to 5 min and chip away the seconds from there on. We also thought about capliary HPLC but we first need the experiance and would like to purchase a versatile HPLC system. I am regarding the detection speed and gradient build up robuustness as the main bottle necks.

For a 2 minute run time, you need to cut out the gradient delay volume and run at high flow rates/linear velocities. You can do this with a Waters 2790 system. You also need a fast detector, with a speed of faster than maybe 20 datapoints per second (you may consider that you can get to a peak width of about 1 second). We got a publication that outlines the details. It is currently in print, but I can send you the manuscript, if you contact me at the email address below.
Uwe.Neue@Prodigy.net

If you want to have 2-min run times, you have also to consider the re-equilibration time of the column; to me a high-pressure gradient pump is in this respect superior to a low-pressure pump.
Don't forget also to take into account the time required by the autosampler in order to inject: for instance, the "normal" Agilent 1100 autosampler (part # 1313 or 1329) requires about 1.5 min for the injection. For high-throughput applications I would consider only the CTC PAL autosampler. This autosampler is the standard for LC-MS today, but is also probably the most expensive autosampler on the market (however you pay for what you get)

Recent software and firmware features introduced by Agilent have allowed the autosampler to "overlap injections" or prepare the next injection prior to the end of the current run. Thus the time between runs can be shortened to seconds.

As you can see, many people have differing opinions on equipment. Some don't like Waters because, well, they are using dinosaur like equipment. I work for a large fortune 10 company and can afford to have many different systems old and new. I also should mention I have been doing this for over 40 years and am well known in the field. Note that this is an open forum and sales people typically frequent here. Bottom line, Waters is the best on the market at this time (their quality is reflected in their stock performance over the last two years). They have more equipment in the pharm. and biotech (companies needing high throughput) arenas than any other supplier. Agilent is close, but they have over-simplified equipment to the point that performance is sometimes sacrificed. I also have data on pump flow reproducibility from 8 vendors, and again Waters is on top, this is data that I have produced and use to make all equipment purchases throughout my company (112 units in operation worldwide, all Waters, and all virtually no downtime)
Someone mentioned a rebute to my comment on Agilent(HP) RI detectors referring to the 1047A which you can no longer purchase and has a history of baseline stability issues (see Agilents web site). The new Agilent 1100 is even worse because of the poorly engineered design of the flow cell.

When people ask questions about equipment, please leave it to the experts with the experience to back it up and who DO NOT make their living selling chromo products and services.

Baseline stability is an issue with all refractive index detectors, it's the nature of the beast. When properly installed and plumbed, I've been able to achieve stable baselines with every RI detector I've ever used (HP, Waters and PE). I've also had baseline stability problems with each of these detecors. Can't comment on the 1100 series RI detector since I haven't used it yet.

By the way, I've been doing chromatography for 15 years and own the company so I would hope this qualifies me as knowledgable if not an expert. We provide analytical services to the pharmacetical industry, we do not sell chromo products and services, so I have no vested interest in which vendor Anonymous chooses. That being said, I think that all of the posts here contained some useful information, regardless of the source. I wouldn't disregard someone's input just because they are affiliated with a vendor, you just need to recognize it for what it is. Certainly it helps when the posters identify themselves and their affiliation.

Best Regards,

Michael Hinsberg
http://www.hinsbarlabs.com

15 years; why, your still a teenager. My company owns me, so you're one up on me there.....

cheers

When a HPLC method standardised with a high
pressure gradient system is applied on a low
pressure gradient system, will there be peak shape
distorsions and peak fronting and tailing.

It is possible, but that would mean insufficient mixing on your lp system. On most of todays systems, you wouldn't notice a difference. At least, I haven't.

I miss the Name Shimadzu in this conversation.
I admit, I do not work for Waters.
The NEW LC-2010 which is unchallaed in throughput, performance and ease of use.

Last I heard, Shimadzu isnt even shipping the 2010 yet, pretty bad considering it was unveiled at Pittcon 2000.....

New does not always mean better, in many cases it means nothing but trouble.

hallo

From the comments it is evident that, as with cars, everyone has their opinion on what is the best out there. Another suggestion I would like to give to you is evaluate the technical support you will be getting as well. If you don't have a good responsive technician, it does not matter what brand your LC is when it is not working. There are many good systems out on the market- make sure you qualify the service technician that comes along with the LC just as much as the HPLC.

PS-This is for Chromgod-if you are so well known and such the expert, why don't you use your real name in your messages ?

I have had excellent dealings with the Gynkotek range of products now owned by Dionex. With all instrumentation, when installed, plumbed and trained correctly, they will all do the job for you.
Your most important decision is as to the data system you use. Chromeleon from Gynkotek/Dionex is by far the most user friendly and adaptable system on the market. Do not take my word for it, have it demoed alongside Millenium and Chemstation and you will se what I mean.

so we heard a lot of good hplc-systems. but are there any real bad systems?

We have six Thermo separation Products HPLC system and we are very satisfacted both from the instrument( specially from DAD detector 6000) and from software. Really good machine.

Dr.A.Weisman Chrmagis Ltd. Israel

My first time on the site. I have been reading many of your messages. Many thanks for the comments. How do you all feel about Hitachi? I was thinking about purchasing their HPLC system to run with their new ChromSword Auto package for method development. Any comments, feedback, likes, dislikes?? Thanks for the input!
Rach

I started using Spectra Physics in 1987 and at that time LDC/Milton Roy made their detector and Water's. Now they are all owned by Thermo (ThermoQuest). We have 5 ThermoQuest systems and have found them to be reliable and easy to service. The pump arrangement allows seal changing in 5 minutes or less. The other main wear part is the syringe in the autosampler that we change about every 3 - 5 months, depending on use, and takes about 15 minutes. Their old data system (PC1000) was OS/2 based but the new version (ChromQuest)is NT which allows for all of the security features required by FDA. The neat thing about ChromQuest is that it can also control other equipment (such as HP1050 or 5890)and not just process the data. Service here in the midwest is excellent.

Mr Dale's posting on 01-February may be influenced by the fact that he used to be a salesman for Gynkotek/Dionex and that I believe the company he now runs, Phoenix Analytical is also selling this hardware/software.
As ChromGod says... beware!

Thanks for pointing that out. On the other hand, he included his e-mail address when he could have posted as "Anonymous", so it's not like he was trying to be sneaky.

This does, however, bring up a general comment: over the 2+ years of the Forum's existence, we've been blessed with a great number of valuable contributions from instrument company people. As far as I can tell, there really hasn't been a "spam" problem (the people who administer the Forum really can't take credit for that, by the way; the chromatography "community" has been an incredibly supportive, professional, well-behaved group). I think I can count on the fingers of one hand (and have a finger or two left over) the number of messages deleted for inappropriate content.

Having said that, I'd like to reiterate the ground rules:

1. It's OK (and encouraged) to reply to a posted thread or question, but don't spam the list with unsolicited promotional comments (the obvious exception here is the "News" message board, which is intended for things like new product, courses, meeting announcements, and the like).

2. When posting about your own product or service, please make your affiliation clear.

Thanks!

-- Tom Jupille / LC Resources Inc.

I have had good experience with PE analytical equipment. It is relatively inexpensive, reliable, and easy to operate. You can go for the high-tech computer-based option (TurboChrom), or the less expensive Personal Integrator for data handling. The only down side is that it is harder to do maintenance on (i.e., changing seals) because the pump parts are not easy to access.

Anyone heard of or interested in Fusion-Chrom software? It provides automated design, analysis, and reporting of Method Validation experiments that meet all FDA and ICH guideline. It automates the validation process.

thermo finnigan detector model pda-6000 is stated
as 5-times sensitive is it so

How would you go about selecting a HPLC if you needed it in a petroleum refinery? How would you identify gas oil?

Thank you

Noname,
Buy a system that uses your method. If you are trying to establish new methods and have none of your own, pay a lab to develop one for your guessed to be most difficult separation. Use the method, (same samples, same column,) to compare the equipment.
For very difficult separation, high pressure mixing works best and good pumps (very low pressure pulses,) help the separation. Salesmen can talk and talk but the valve type gradient makers make mobile phases that go up and down by small amounts, that is, like mixing water and alcohol, bands of different concentration form and they mess up separations. That said, if the cheap way works for your separations, use it.
Jim

I would like to hear whether anyone else has experiences with the Dionex equipment. We have used their IC equipment for years but are now looking to buy a new HPLC system. We are comparing Agilent vs Dionex. People appear to be reasonably happy with the Agilent equipment but I haven't heard much about the Dionex HPLC equipment. Waters has a good reputation but they are significantly more expensive.

Dionex HPLC equipment comes from the German company "Gynkotek" they bought a couple of years ago, so more people may know their LCs under this name.
I have no direct experience with these equipments but DAD and software (Chromeleon) have rather good reputation.
Agilent seems to have more features about instruments communication (logbooks, error messages, maintenance counters ...)

chromgod,
I would like to talk to you about comparing equipment. I have done that a couple of times one with a rigorous protocol but have not done it recently, (last 20 years,) and would like your opinions offline.
Jim

Lots of good advice here, but much of it is based on location and what you are using the system for.

Look at what you want your HPLC to do;
High throughput?
High sensitivity?
Automated?
Easily maintained?
The list goes on (and on and on).

Really if you just need to do a lot of injections of a very routine nature, you don't need the more expensive systems.

The other part is support. Some claim great support for a particular brand. This is VERY dependent on the local sales/support staff.

In my little corner of the world, I have great support from certain vendors, but others are so-so or downright bad.
If you are planning on doing maintenance in-house, then you will probably want the simpler designs that have easy access to moving parts and are easy to maintain.
But if you need the absolute best precision or detection limits available pay the money and get the top-of-the-line.
Demo, demo, demo!!! Test the systems using the assay you will be running. Some systems will perform better under certain circumstances (despite what vendors tell you). And if a vendor won't give you a demo, be worried. This does happen occasionally when a system is new and not widely available, but don't buy that excuse for too long.

Also look at the software (if it is something that you will be using). Do you need 21CFR Part 11 compliance? Is is set up to do what you want it to? Can it control your system?

Oh, and be wary of anyone who tells you that one particular system is the "only" one.

Good luck to all those looking for HPLCs.

Has anybody used " Ecom Spol.S.R.O." HPLC system? It is made in Czech republic.
Any information would be really helpful.
Thanks,
Inga

ECOM systems are controlled by CSW software (Dataapex Czech Rep.). This software is widely used here (I have their LC control for Waters 515 pumps and GC control for Shimadzu GC17). I have no experince with pumps or detectors, only with column ovens and injector valves (both work wery well). Vojtech

Does anyone have any insights/ experience with minimizing/ controlling peak effiency (theoretical plate). I'm particularly interested in the relationship between detector response and peak efficiency (I use Waters 996 and 2996 diode array detectors).

I have a service contract with a small company that does HPLC service/validations and I've been very happy with them. I saved money refurbishing the old systems and had enough left over to put towards a new system.Here's the site:

http://www.lchromatography.com

I have a service contract with a small company that does HPLC service/validations and I've been very happy with them. I saved money refurbishing the old systems and had enough left over to put towards a new system.Here's the site:

http://www.lchromatography.com

I am getting ready to purchase a new HPLC system with a PDA and RI detector. The discussion seems fairly neutral with different vendors. I am wondering if anyone has purchased an HPLC system and has been completely dissatisfied with the instrument performance.

Hi there
I've a problem about laboratory equipments.For example what kind of recording documents do you produce for identification of an HPLC equipment.What kind of document do you have in your HPLC file.Would you please give me detiled information?
Best regards

Hi,
I'm getting to purchase a new HPLC system Waters or Agilent.Does anybody have a great or bad experiance with their customer support in France ???
By the way, The two systems (with quaternary high pressure pumps / UV detection ) seem to be neerly identical. Does anybody have an experience which could help me to make the difference??
Best regards

Agilent support is pretty good (at least near Lyon).
No recent experience with Waters.
Diagnosis and automatic checks of the system are much more developped by Agilent

To Anonymous (May 6):

What system do you have in mind when comparing Waters and Agilent? If you think of the 600 series from Waters and the 1100 series from Agilent...OK!
But you cannot compare the 2695 series (Alliance) or even the 2795 series (mainly for HT) with the 1100. It `s pretty like comparing apples and pears. The Alliance has a unique solvent manangement system. Both pump pistons are controlled separately. The system volumes are very low (about 650 µl in the 2695 series and about 400 µl? in the 2795). OK, Waters had some problems with the degasser units, but this seems to be out of date...
The 2795 rules parallel sample analysis in contrast to sequential, so the sample cycle time can take only some minutes.
The 2695 or 2795 are very comfortable in maintainance purposes. You do not need to have a srewdriver to change the pump heads...
Concerning customer support, I can only speek for the german market: quite good experience, bau depends on the region in Germany (best technical support in the Berlin area)...But in France... just keep in mind that Waters EHQ is located near Paris...

Hope that helps a bit...
Tony

Does anyone have much experience with the Waters HPLC Breeze setup? If so, how do you like it? What kind of problems have you encountered?

Dear Scientists

I require Chiral separation Application support.
Name of the Drug(API): Levofloxacin, it is an enantiomer of Ofloxacin(Ofloxacin is racemate). Levofloxacin is S-(-)Form, R-Form separation is required. Chiral TBB 250 X 4.6 column used earlier, but it is not separating well.

If anyone has worked on Merck Chiral coloumn for the above compound or similar compound, pl. advise.

Thanks

I seem to be one of several facing a similar PDA HPLC purchase decision: Agilent 1100 or Waters 600E/2996? We've had Waters 600E & 996 equipment running with their software (currently Millennium32) in our lab ca. 8 years with minimal trouble (we have nice clean samples and low throughput, which probably has a lot to do with it). We'd be happy to go for Waters again, but need to check whether Agilent have an edge on anything, hence our interest in hearing what fellow users think. Our deciding factor may come down to this: if we opt for Agilent, we'll probably upgrade to Waters' new Empower software rather than buy ChemStation (unless convinced otherwise) because our current Waters system will run alongside the new one, but can Empower handle 3D data from an Agilent PDA as well as if it were a Waters PDA? Any comments/advice welcomed.

To Anita,

what version of MLM32 are you using??? Ver. 4.0 seems to cause no problem when upgrading to Empower. Ver. 3.2 or older will bring some trouble, cause Waters won 't support upgrading to Empower directly from that version. You have to upgrade to ver. 4.0 first. Additionally, Empower requires Windows 2000 as Operating System rather than Windows NT. You won 't be able to get Empower working on a WinNT system. So you maybe have to upgrade here, too. Empower cannot handle ANY 3D data, so you won't be able to run the Agilent PDA in 3D mode, only in variable wavelength mode. This is also true for the Agilent MSD. But if your are not limited to running in 3D mode you can use the Agilent detectors as well. Recently I visited an Empower presentation...and, hey, just forget everything you heard or saw about user-friendly CDS. Just think of what you want to do and...just do it...with Empower.
Hope this helps a bit

Hi Frank

You've confirmed what other colleagues have told us. Thanks for your view.

Anita

Hi Anita,

just to clear some possible item of misunderstanding...Of course, Empower CAN handle 3D date, but only generated by Waters detectors. And let me emphasise one point once again:
If your using Waters equipment or if you must not generate 3D data with "Non-Waters-detectors", then you will be VERY happy with Empower. Because of the versatility and free scalability of Empower you do not have to buy many other programs for generating QC control cards or for statistics or for reporting in PDF-files or...(and so on). So you will have "low cost of ownership". Regarding these points, upgrading to Win 2000 is somehow a matter of "peanuts"...

Frank

Biotage Parallex Flex 4-column system
Originally purchased June 2001 lists at $160,000

1 to 50mL/Min at 4,000 psig maximum pressure
Low pressure binary gradient system per channel
Parallex Automated loader module with a tray for 8 microtiter type
plates/racks
Parallex Flex dual wavelength UV detector with 254nm and 280nm filters and a
4-channel flow cell
Four Parallex Flex automated fraction collectors with a tray for 8
microtiter type plates/racks and three position riser to accomodate tray
with plates, test tubes or vials
4 liter tank for sample wash solvent
Parallex Flex Software HTOC
Dell Computer system
Barcode reader
Barcode label printer

Manuals, tools, fittings and tubing
37Liter solvent tank


regards

Martin Steel

I work in the LC field as a service engineer for all brands of equipment and can tell you from a service point of view the waters machines break the most, and are more expensive to fix when compared to other vendors such as HP/Agilent, Shimadzu, Hitachi.

HP/Agilent, Shimadzu, Hitachi all produce tighter injection volumes and yield smaller % rsd's when compared to waters equipment. I think the big draw to waters is that they are such a big company and therefore people feel they make a far superior machine but that isn't the case.

Our famous slogan at work is "waters keeps us in buisness because they break so much"

Any response from Water's people?

Anon - re high throughput - if you go cap, you need to go to great lengths to minimize the system volume. This means high pressure mixing, short runs of very narrow bore tubing and low volume pump heads. Agilent probably has everyone whipped here.

Re: Hitachi - good stuff, good prices, service depends on your location.

Re: Agilent vs. Waters on PDA detector systems - if you already have Empower going, get Waters. If you don't have Empower, or don't want to spend a lot of extra money buying Empower, get Agilent. If cost is no object, get a system from whoever offers better local support. As long as a Waters PDA is running w/ Empower, it's at least as good as Agilent's PDA. If you want analog outputs to be monitored via an enterprise CDS (use the PDA as a substitute for a UV), the Agilent will be better suited & more sensitive in that setting.

Re: Thermo - check around - some detectors w/ the 5cm light pipe flow cell have been tough to calibrate after some time... some sort of coating problem I think.

Personsl history:
Good experiences: Shimadzu, Waters, Agilent, SpectraPhysics (now Thermo)

Bad experiences: Shimadzu, (old) Waters, PE, (old) Dionex

Re: piston washing for pumps - this is now generally available (although w/ agilent 1100 series, you have to take the heads apart to install the spacers etc. that come standard w/ most pumps these days).

IN PREPAATION OF AMOBILE PHASE CAN I USE SOUDIUM OCTASULPHONATE INSTEAD OF SODIUMHEXASULPHONATE AND VIS VERSA. TETRABUTYLAMMONIUHYDROGEN SULPHATE INSTEAD OF TETRABUTYLAMMONIUHYDROGEN PHOSPHATE

No! If you use different chemicals, you will get different results. Would you use acetone, if you don't have any acetonitrile?