That's interesting. I did not realize that the octopole was a routinely replaced item. Good to know and it makes sense in the reaction zone. I see that you use some interesting mixtures. How do the two quads fare over time? If they do need replacing - even after a few years - how easy to do. We would be pretty well guaranteed to have to do this ourselves because of our work with radioactives. Not that much real activity, but service people tend to be really nervous when you say "radioactive". Would they be a major expense? How much? I would not expect to do that very often but if you do not budget for it then upper management gets upset.
I absolutely agree about the importance of getting the best cones possible for corrosive or reactive work. We were able to get some custom Pt/Ir tipped cones for our old Sciex Elan DRC with the tipped region extending significantly farther - major improvement. We also found that we could dissolve cones at the interface with "regular" cones. Luckily Ir was "in" for a short while so that we could get them made because they did not seem to catch on otherwise - a great shame in my opinion if you have nasty matrices. No one else seems to agree with my love of these cones - not just the specific alloy of Pt/Ir, but the extra "depth" of the tips. In addition to the extra resistance to destruction, we did get a small but real improvement in performance due to the extra harness - the tips retained shape better. It took enormous effort to get a few similar sets of cones made for our Varian 820, but with the unfortunate demise of Varian and then Bruker as suppliers there is little hope of repeating that. Of course, the larger Varian cones made that a serious expense, so it would not be easy to repeat anyway. I do hope that the new systems become popular enough that they represent a noticeable market - then there is hope of doing the same if we are able to acquire either of the 2 new systems.
By any chance, are the cone design and dimensions common to the line? Then we would not need to worry about the new systems specifically becoming "volume" items.
Dr. Otto Herrmann, Ph.D.,
800 Kipling Ave., Unit 2, Building KJ
[log in to unmask]
From: PLASMACHEM-L: Analytical Chem.(ICP's, DCP's, MIP's). [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Pappas, Richard Steve (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH) [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 March 2017 09:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Agilent Triple Quad ICPMS? - 8800 or new 8900
I am only able to answer regarding the Agilent QQQ.
It is easy to remove the cones, lens assembly for cleaning. The precaution is to do it on a surface where the little o-rings between the different lenses cannot roll away.
We have seen particles build up in the cooling water manifold and decrease the flow over a month (after a couple of years using them). It is not that difficult to flush the system in order to keep this down with cavitation of the recirculator while keeping your finger covering the connection from which the hose was removed. I used to do this with our Element until the newer better chillers made it difficult to cavitate.
We have a service contract - I can't remember whether they replace the octopole every 6 or 12 months, but not difficult either.
We use the Pt-tipped cones because they stand up better to HF or HCl-containing acid mixes and do not as readily build up carbon.
However, I prefer the Pt-tipped nickel-plated Cu that you can get from Spectron or Glass Expansion, not the Pt-tipped Cu cones that Agilent sells. We had an especially bad experience with the Cu-base cones when using Electrothermal Vaporization with CCl4-saturated argon as reactive gas. The Cl formed by the ETV attacked the Cu cones mercilessly. It dug a moat around the Pt-tip so that it looked like a fortified tower like at the corners of castle walls with a Pt roof on top. Not everyone will have that amount of Cl attacking cones, but just a word about the Ni-plated versus Cu cones in case anyone has plans for something like that.
We have not had a noticeable problem with adjacent masses. Considering the fact that with either the QOQ or QFQ, you have a full quadrupole for Q1, not a cell mini-quad, you have unit mass resolution. The chemical resolution was so good that we could use the more abundant 80 isotope, 80Se+ shifted to 80SeO+ in spite of the adjacent ArAr+, and improve our method LOD versus the previous method (0.019 µg/g vs. 0.69 µg/g). Our lowest standard (0.050 µg/g equivalent) was our LRL. At these levels, we accurately nailed NIST 1570a Spinach leaves and 1573a Tomato leaves in the range of 0.11 µg/g, though our results were lower than CTA-OTL-1 target values in the same range. Our results with the SRMs and CRMs were consistent, which they would not be if 79Br+, 40Ar40Ar+, or 81Br+ were an on mass or adjacent mass problem. That may not be the same problem as 55Mn and 56Fe, but we had good SRM and CRM results for Mn as well.
Pappas RS, Martone N, Gonzalez-Jimenez N, Fresquez MR, Watson CH. Determination of toxic metals in little cigar tobacco with 'Triple Quad' ICP-MS. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2015;39:347-352.
R. Steven Pappas, Ph.D.
Team Lead, Tobacco Inorganics Group
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
4770 Buford Highway, NE
M.S. F44, Building 110
Atlanta, GA 30341-3717, USA
This transmission contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. It is intended for the named addressee only. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorized to receive it on behalf of the addressee, you may not copy, use, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
Kinectrics Inc. 800 Kipling Avenue, Unit 2 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M8Z 5G5