I want to measure my system volumes , what is standard procedure for this, any body can highlight this . As i am having different systems like agilent VWED, Mwd, WATERS , and shimadzu systems . I need to Standardise all the tubing volumes and make all the systems of nearly same
dead volumes .

System dwell volume can easiy be measured with a 0.5% acetone tracer in one channel, measure at 265nm, linear gradient from no tracer to tracer, extrapolate the linear portion of the gradient back to where it intersects the basline and convert to volume. You could also use a step change. If your company performs gradient accuracy tests as part of instrument calibration or OQ/PV you could probably extract the relavent information.

Dwell volume is actually the volume from the point of mixing to the column inlet. However it is usually measured to the detector. You can decide if it is worth it to you to subtract out the column volume.

It is not normally necessary or desireable to make all of the dwell volumes the same. You should be aware of them and test for their effect on gradient selectivity during method development/validation/transfer. But there is usually no need to add dwell volume to low volume systems just to make all systems match.

Actually i am doing method developement for the generic company as timeis money we develope a numbers of method in a short time , so we do not sufficient time at the developement stage to check on system to system , as it might be developed on waters and using on agilent can happen during validation and on Qc Stage so my purpose is to make same volume of all system exist at the place so that any where we develop on system it will work on all systems , as i already phased lot probleams with 3 to 4 methods which were developed on waters pda and its not working on Agilent Vwd .

So i think it can be sorted out by only making same system volume .

if youhave another suggesion let me know

If you have newer systems with low-pressure gradient mixing from Waters or Agilent, you can eliminate the delay volume alltogether. They have a feature that is called delayed injection (at least for the Waters system) that allows you to make the injection at the moment the gradient reaches the column. With this feature, you can make all systems look the same in a simple way.

If your systems include older systems, where this can not be done, you should measure which one has the largest delay volume. You can than add this delay volume to any system that needs to be compatible simply by programming a delay at the beginning of the gradient. Once again, no tubing required, just a step in the method program.
You need to decide, if the hard wiring with tubing or the software approach (which may require some education) is simpler for your lab.

If you want your methods to be robust from instrument to instrument and lab to lab there is no substitute for information and testing.

I would recommend incorportating sysem benchmarks (including dwell volume) into the annual calibration/OQ/PQ or parsing the calibrations for the required information.

If you develop on a low volume system testing is as simple as a sigle injection with a length of tubing between the injector and column to simulate the difference bewteen your low volume systems and your higher volume systems.

As A. Mouse suggested you could delay the injection on your higher volume systems. With the Agilent 1100 you can also use an injector program to switch the injector to bypass and switch out some of the delay volume.

Regarding gradient methods, sometimes you can elute early eluting peaks during an isocratic hold where selectivity isn't affected by dwell volume, then run the gradient for later eluting peaks. Sometimes just expanding the range of the gradient a little, while it may waste a minute at the begining or end, may make the method robust to your dwell volumes.
Good Luck.

Also, once you know your dwell volumes, simulating them in DryLab isn't a bad idea and only takes a minute.