Difference between and recommendations for Dionex and nLC 1000 systems from Thermo

Whether you are building your own mass spec, modifying an existing one, or just need help with instrument settings post about it in here.
Neil
Phosphoserine Member
Phosphoserine Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:13 pm

Difference between and recommendations for Dionex and nLC 1000 systems from Thermo

Postby Neil » Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:21 pm

Our lab is considering getting a new LC system to couple with our MS, but we're having trouble deciding which system would be best for us (between a Dionex u3000 and an nLC 1000 . We have a many users that would be operating the instrument, so "user friendliness" is actually a pretty big factor for us. We've also got one user that wants to do Mudpit experiments, so he'd like a system that can handle more than two solvents.

We currently have an nLC-II, so we have somewhat of an idea of what the nLC 1000 will be like, but we've never used a Dionex system before. Does anyone have experience with both of these systems, and if so, what did you think of each of them? I'm also not entirely sure about the differences between the systems, so if anyone is able to comment on that, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Neil

m/z
Angiotensin Member
Angiotensin Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:06 am

Postby m/z » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:59 am

I have recent experience with both Thermo/Proxeon nLC and Dionex u3000.

Major differences are: the dionex has an oven and allows for actual mudpit (in my understanding none of the nLC allows for mudpit, unless you use biphasic columns which can be a pain in the neck to work with). The Dionex now use viper fittings which are stable, but also add an extra price to the analytical columns (if you do not make them yourself)

In my opinion Dionex u3000 is fairly easy to use - but it allows for many more options than the nLC which can be confusing in the beginning, but usually you will not need to use all the features. The Dionex comes with a nice software that is probably good when many users need to use different programs, folders etc.

(Our older nLC allowed for maximum of ~300 bar so we needed a new system and made a deal with Thermo that took our old nLC and we didn't need the detector, so we saved some money on the Dionex system - just a suggestion).

marc
Proton Member
Proton Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:23 am

Postby marc » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:01 am

The Easy nLC1000 is equipped with Viper fittings, too. So the same advantages/disadvantages.

You should think about what you want to do with your LC. If you want a system that runs standard samples 24/7 my recommendation would be the Easy. It is easy to control and to maintain, and takes up less space.

If you want to run fancy stuff like mudpit or different solvent and/or columns my recommendation would be the Dionex. But have in mind what you want do when you order the different modules.

Infinity
E. Coli Lysate Member
E. Coli Lysate Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:22 pm

Postby Infinity » Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:08 pm

We have both systems and I agree with marc. I would say that Easy nLC is more user-friendly compared to dionex, but take into account that you will be able to use only vented column/precolumn setup on Easy nLC.

gadsouza
Angiotensin Member
Angiotensin Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:41 am

Postby gadsouza » Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:23 pm

You do not necessarily need precolumn or vented column on an Easy nLC, you can inject straight to the analytical column if your column setup can hold 800 bars and if you can heat the column to 60C. Of course your injection volume will still be not bigger than 2 uL or so.

tharan
Proton Member
Proton Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:25 am

Postby tharan » Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:27 am

gadsouza wrote:You do not necessarily need precolumn or vented column on an Easy nLC, you can inject straight to the analytical column if your column setup can hold 800 bars and if you can heat the column to 60C. Of course your injection volume will still be not bigger than 2 uL or so.


You are not limited to 2ul, as long as your willing to accept the longer load time, you can load up to 18ul with a 20ul sample loop in place.

Infinity
E. Coli Lysate Member
E. Coli Lysate Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:22 pm

Postby Infinity » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:48 am

gadsouza wrote:You do not necessarily need precolumn or vented column on an Easy nLC, you can inject straight to the analytical column if your column setup can hold 800 bars and if you can heat the column to 60C. Of course your injection volume will still be not bigger than 2 uL or so.


Keep in mind that you can do it (directly inject on analytical column) only if your samples are desalted.

gadsouza
Angiotensin Member
Angiotensin Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:41 am

Postby gadsouza » Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:00 am

tharan wrote:You are not limited to 2ul, as long as your willing to accept the longer load time, you can load up to 18ul with a 20ul sample loop in place.


Of course you can: doubt anyone would do it on a routine basis though given that the loading time itself could be over an hour depending on the length of the column

Infinity wrote:Keep in mind that you can do it (directly inject on analytical column) only if your samples are desalted.


Quite honestly I would desalt even if I was using a 2-column setup (as redundant that might sound), just to avoid the risk of clogging in sampler/loop/trap-in line. Never used setup with trap columns though so no idea if clogging is much of a real risk.


Return to “Instrumentation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest