Evaluation of the Etune using an Xtr source

Question for those using a GCMS with an extractor source (Xtr EI 350, 5977B).  Our relative abundance for 502 ion has always been lower using the Etune compared to the Atune.  We have been using the Tune Evaluation as a criteria check for our instrument to pass and this number sometimes falls below the 2.4%.  I recently learned that the Tune Evaluation only applies to the Atune.  I also see that the 502 rel abund is somewhat arbitrary because when the 69/219 abundances vary the 502 relative changes a lot, even though the absolute abundance does not, which makes sense.  But I’m wondering what guidelines other labs use to say the instrument passes and is operating properly, since we are in the legal field we need a checkoff like a tune evaluation.   Is the 502 always lower with extractor sources using Etune?  Is there any parameter to change to boost this up?  Agilent, do you have any documentation or recommendation for us to use as passing specs for Etune or something written to say rel abun of 502 is not an important gauge of instrument condition?

Parents
  • Yes, this answers my question about where tunes start from, thank you.  However, I thought in the previous discussion about the Tune Evaluation that it was designed for Atune only using He and 230 ion source/150C quad?  Will Tune Evaluation evaluate an Etune correctly even though that source is designed to run at higher temperatures?  I need to know for our lab if the Tune Evaluation criteria is only for Atune or should all tunes pass by this criteria.  I am trying to write up passing criteria for Etune files.  Thank you!
    Personal info removed by moderator 
  • The tune evaluation criteria are benchmarks that GCMS instruments typically pass. 

    "Designed for" and "works with" are two different things.  The tune evaluation was created before the Extractor Source and High Efficiency Source. These ion sources get more ions into the quad, the spectral tilt is different than the non-extractor orthogonal EI source, and both work slightly better at a bit higher temperature.  These benefits mean that the extractor source meets the tune evaluation criteria very easily most of the time.  The High Efficiency Source will pass those criteria easily most of the time.  Think of the Tune Evaluation criteria as very basic. 

    But, if someone chooses to run the column flow at 0.3 or 2.0 ml/min or run the source at 325° C, uses hydrogen carrier gas, or really jambs with the HES, the tune evaluation criteria may not all pass - and no one likes a fail on any test even if their choices caused it.  Those operators want the instrument repaired yet there is nothing broken.  Personally, I wish the tune evaluation was removed as it is used too often in SOPs without all of the details.   

    I said above, "tuning is making sure that the system is somewhere in large range of acceptable functionality."  Most criteria should be wide ranges or values easily met.   I think that I need to write a blog post about this subject. 

    ##############

    While I have you reading - this is to anyone who reads this --- talk to Agilent about your methods and SOPs before you validate them, before you make them official.  We will be glad to review them!  It's better to fix issues before you have to live with the consequences.   There are tiny details that can improve reproducibility, overall system functionality, and long-term support.  Ask your service engineer or salesperson for help.  Call your country's toll-free number and ask for help.

Reply
  • The tune evaluation criteria are benchmarks that GCMS instruments typically pass. 

    "Designed for" and "works with" are two different things.  The tune evaluation was created before the Extractor Source and High Efficiency Source. These ion sources get more ions into the quad, the spectral tilt is different than the non-extractor orthogonal EI source, and both work slightly better at a bit higher temperature.  These benefits mean that the extractor source meets the tune evaluation criteria very easily most of the time.  The High Efficiency Source will pass those criteria easily most of the time.  Think of the Tune Evaluation criteria as very basic. 

    But, if someone chooses to run the column flow at 0.3 or 2.0 ml/min or run the source at 325° C, uses hydrogen carrier gas, or really jambs with the HES, the tune evaluation criteria may not all pass - and no one likes a fail on any test even if their choices caused it.  Those operators want the instrument repaired yet there is nothing broken.  Personally, I wish the tune evaluation was removed as it is used too often in SOPs without all of the details.   

    I said above, "tuning is making sure that the system is somewhere in large range of acceptable functionality."  Most criteria should be wide ranges or values easily met.   I think that I need to write a blog post about this subject. 

    ##############

    While I have you reading - this is to anyone who reads this --- talk to Agilent about your methods and SOPs before you validate them, before you make them official.  We will be glad to review them!  It's better to fix issues before you have to live with the consequences.   There are tiny details that can improve reproducibility, overall system functionality, and long-term support.  Ask your service engineer or salesperson for help.  Call your country's toll-free number and ask for help.

Children
No Data
Was this helpful?