Justification to have a UPLC

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Venugopal Narne
Venugopal Narne's picture
Justification to have a UPLC

Dear All,
This is a critical time for me to show my projection to get the capex approval i wanted to get a UPLC or Nano UPLC into my lab my application is very simple small molecule analysis and polymer extractables, Leachables from plastic contact surfaces.
My lab contain a Advanced conventional RSLC in this situation how i can justify the Nano UPLC procurement into my lab

Dr. Analytical
Dr. Analytical's picture
Why do you think you need a

Why do you think you need a UPLC or nano LC unit?  Do you have specific projects that would require these instruments, or are you just trying to justify purchase of a new "toy?"
For the applications that you describe (small molecules, extractables) you do not need a UPLC system.  A good, modern HPLC (for example, from Agilent or Dionex) would provide all the resolution and speed that you need.  It is very important that you learn about modern operating parameters in HPLC.  Then you will be able to get the  best results from any HPLC system.
 

g a
g a's picture
Unless you really need an

Unless you really need an equipment you dont need to purchase that.
Science is not about having the most recent most powerful instruments.... its also about using the simplest basic facts to attain the results.
They say.......
In physics the research is driven by the emergence of new facts..... and logics.......but in biology its through the new technology.
If you dont need an equipment dont ask for it funding agencies can use that money to fund another projects..

Greg Pronger
Greg Pronger's picture
1280x1024

1280x1024

Normal
0

false
false
false

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

1280x1024

Normal
0

false
false
false

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Most organizations have a very formalized protocol for a capital expenditure. There are at least two main considerations:

  1. The analysis cannot be performed by any other technique or the required detection levels are only achievable on the new system. You will need to consider use of a 3rd party contract lab. Are there proprietary considerations which would preclude the use of a 3rd party lab? Are the overall costs involved with a subcontractor greater than the costs internally? Many organizations prefer to have their internal expertise to focus on their product versus analytical.
  2. You need to do a cost analysis of the system and any other associated costs (training, installation, etc) and demonstrate that you will be either generating sufficient revenue or saving labor costs to payback the cost of the system. I will typically look for a 3 year payback. Depending upon the organization, this may be longer or shorter.

From a professional perspective, though a bit counter-intuitive, managing the use of a contract lab and demonstrating the savings of significant costs, may move you forward in the organization faster, than bringing in the new piece of technology. It is pretty easy, when faced with a lab challenge to go to management and tell them I need a new piece of equipment. To go through the cost analysis, and delineate the pros-and-cons will more likely set you apart in the organization regardless if if means a new piece of equipment or managing a subcontracted analysis.
Greg

Bryan Evans
Bryan Evans's picture
I don't think you need nano

I don't think you need nano LC for this application - so I'd limit your choice to HPLC and U-HPLC. 
Will you be utilizing any other separation mechanism besides reversed-phase?  Can you do most of the repairs on your current instrument?  Would you be highly annoyed (when) your instrument breaks down and you  have to call on the vendor to do the repairs?  Will you be transfering this method to another lab? Will you ever need to purify anything (scale to prep) for further analysis?  Do you need to set aside money for future financing of "add-ons" (e.g. ELSD, MS, ect.).  Are your samples dirty?  Will you ever have to use other solvents besides acetonitrile for your analysis (such as MeOH, IPA, ect.)? 
If you answered yes to any of the above questions - than I suggest HPLC.
Bryan