<div><p><strong>Air bubbles in an HPLC system can disrupt pumping reliability, cause baseline noise, and result in poor result reproducibility and valve function. To prevent these, proper mobile phase degassing is essential.&nbsp;</strong></p><p>Degassing in HPLC not only ensures stable pumping but also improves sensitivity and accuracy by preventing dissolved oxygen from forming bubbles that interfere with detectors such as UV-VIS, fluorescence, refractive index, or electrochemical. Effective HPLC solvent degassing is therefore a critical step for stable, accurate, and reproducible chromatography.</p></div><div><div><div><div><h3><strong>What is HPLC Solvent Degassing and Why is it Necessary?</strong></h3></div></div></div></div><div><p>When solvents such as water, buffers, acetonitrile, and methanol contact the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen dissolve into them. When mixed, their combined air content can exceed the solubility of the mixture, creating a supersaturated condition that leads to outgassing and bubble formation. These bubbles disrupt <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.phenomenex.com/techniques/hplc">HPLC</a> performance by causing unstable baselines, bad peak shape, pump cavitation, retention time shifting, and loss of sensitivity.</p><p>In pumps, air can stop flowing or cause erratic retention times, while in optical detectors, bubbles scatter light and generate noise or false signals. Although it is not necessary to remove all dissolved air, degassing in HPLC lowers gas levels below supersaturation and prevents these issues. Low-pressure mixing systems are especially prone to bubble formation, whereas high-pressure mixing reduces outgassing because solvents blend under elevated pressure.</p></div><div><div><div><div><h3><strong>Types of Degassing Techniques in HPLC</strong></h3></div></div></div></div><div><p>Degassing the mobile phase was once a major concern in liquid chromatography with outgassing problems being among the most common issues during the first decades of its use. The introduction of inline degassers in HPLC in the past 15–20 years has significantly reduced the occurrence of these problems, to the point that many users today have little experience with them. However, while inline degassing prevents most solvent outgassing issues, it does not eliminate all problems caused by dissolved air.</p></div><div><div><div><div><h4><strong>Inline Degassing</strong></h4></div></div></div></div><div><p>Inline degassing works by passing the mobile phase through a gas-permeable membrane within a vacuum chamber, allowing dissolved gases to escape while retaining the liquid. Different techniques include:</p><ul><li><strong>Vacuum degasser:</strong> Inline vacuum degassers, now standard in most modern HPLC systems, have greatly reduced bubble-related pump issues by efficiently removing dissolved gases. Solvents pass through porous tubing within a vacuum chamber, where gases diffuse out through micropores to waste, while the degassed liquid continues flowing onto the pump.</li><li><strong>Membrane degasser:</strong> Over the years, various polymer materials have been tried with varying success for degassers. Modern degassers use a thin, highly gas-permeable membrane, making the degassing process very efficient.</li></ul></div><div><div><div><div><h5><strong>Advantages</strong></h5></div></div></div></div><div><p>Inline degassers are highly reliable and effective at reducing dissolved gases in the mobile phase to acceptable levels and are now standard in most HPLC systems. It is usually automatic and trouble-free. They require little to no maintenance, making them convenient and reliable for routine use.</p></div><div><div><div><div><h5><strong>Limitations</strong></h5></div></div></div></div><div><p>Despite their effectiveness, inline degassers do not remove all dissolved air from the mobile phase. The residual air can still cause problems in certain sensitive applications. Membrane replacement, vacuum pump failure, or damaged tubing can also cause issues, so proper maintenance is essential to avoid costly repairs. Additionally, microbial growth in the buffer can block membrane pores and contaminate the entire HPLC system. To prevent microbial growth, contamination, or blockages, it is best not to store the degasser with water or buffer in the tubing and to flush with 30% phosphoric acid followed by water if contamination occurs.</p></div><div><div><div><div><h4><strong>Offline Degassing</strong></h4></div></div></div></div><div><p>Offline degassing involves removing dissolved air from the mobile phase before it enters the HPLC system. The techniques include:</p><ul><li><strong>Helium sparging:</strong> This method requires a solvent inlet filter to prevent particulates and improve gas dispersion, but the degassed solvent can reabsorb air once in the system. To reduce bubble formation, slight back pressure should be maintained, often using a backpressure regulator after the detector. Helium purging can remove <strong>up to 80% of dissolved air</strong>, requiring equal helium volume for organic–aqueous phases. However, the flow rate should be reduced over time to avoid losing volatile components.</li><li><strong>Vacuum filtration:</strong> Vacuum degassing removes <strong>over 60%</strong> of dissolved air from the mobile phase and is performed through batch-wise treatment. It can also be done during filtration, before the chromatographic process with a 0.45 or 0.22 μm membrane filter, though this method is less effective.</li><li><strong>Sonication:</strong> Ultrasonic baths alone are not effective for degassing, as they remove<strong> only about 20-30% of dissolved gases</strong>, while at least 50% removal is needed. However, when combined with helium sparging or vacuum degassing, sonication becomes a <strong>useful complementary method</strong>. Since ultrasonic baths are common in laboratories, they are best applied alongside other degassing techniques.</li></ul></div><div><div><div><div><h5><strong>Advantages</strong></h5></div></div></div></div><div><p>An offline degasser offers the advantage of using a 2 µm solvent inlet filter to prevent particulates from entering the mobile phase while ensuring efficient gas dispersion. It is also cost-effective and flexible, as it relies on standard laboratory equipment and can handle large solvent volumes in a batch.</p></div><div><div><div><div><h5><strong>Limitations</strong></h5></div></div></div></div><div><p>A major drawback of offline helium sparging is that the mobile phase can gradually reabsorb air once placed in the HPLC system, leading to signal loss and changing sensitivity. Additionally, helium sparging can be expensive as it requires specialized gas cylinders.</p><h3><strong>Inline vs Offline Degassing: Side-by-Side Comparison</strong></h3><h5><strong>Timing:</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Offline Degassing: </strong>It is usually done before the mobile phase enters the HPLC run.</li><li><strong>Inline Degassing: </strong>It is a continuous process that occurs during an HPLC run.</li></ul><h5><strong>Degassing Efficiency:</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Offline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>The efficiency can be variable. For instance, vacuum/sonication removes 60–70% of dissolved air, sonication alone removes <strong>20–30%</strong> of air and helium sparging removes 80% of air.</li><li><strong>Inline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>It does not remove 100% of dissolved gas, but it removes most of it. However, it prevents bubble formation.</li></ul><h5><strong>Risk of Re-dissolving:</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Offline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>The risk is high as solvents can reabsorb air when exposed to the atmosphere.</li><li><strong>Inline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>The risk is low as the continuous vacuum keeps new gas from dissolving.</li></ul><h5><strong>Cost:</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Offline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>Low initial investment and requires only basic lab equipment. <strong>Helium</strong> sparging can be expensive as it requires specialized gas cylinders.</li><li><strong>Inline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>Higher initial cost (dedicated degasser unit and vacuum pump).</li></ul><h5><strong>Ease of Use:</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Offline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>Manual setup each time which is time-consuming.</li><li><strong>Inline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>Automated after installation.</li></ul><h5><strong>Impact on Solvent Composition:</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Offline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>Some loss of volatiles is possible such as evaporation during sparging.</li><li><strong>Inline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>Solvent composition remains unchanged.</li></ul><h5><strong>Effect on Chromatographic Stability:</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Offline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>Improves initial stability but may allow bubble re-formation later.</li><li><strong>Inline Degassing:&nbsp;</strong>Very stable baselines and retention. Bubble-related problems are virtually eliminated.</li></ul><div><div><div><div><h3><strong>When to Choose Offline vs Inline Degassing</strong></h3></div></div></div></div><div><p>The choice between an offline and inline HPLC degasser depends on the situation, including factors like routine use, troubleshooting needs, and method sensitivity.</p><ol><li>Offline degassing is suitable for occasional use, limited equipment setups, or when routine inline degassing is not available. While inline degassing is preferred for routine analyses requiring consistent performance and high sensitivity.</li><li>Inline degassers have a higher initial cost but save labor. An offline degasser uses low-cost labware and is cheap to set up, though helium or other gases add to the consumable cost.</li><li>If mobile phases contain volatile organics or labile salts, avoid aggressive offline sparging/vacuum (which can evaporate components). Inline vacuum degassing is gentler on the solvent composition.</li><li>Oxygen in the mobile phase is particularly problematic for sensitive methods, such as low-wavelength UV or reductive electrochemical detection. While techniques like helium sparging and inline degassing effectively remove oxygen, remember that offline-sparged solvents are susceptible to reabsorbing air over time, which can lead to signal loss and subtle changes in sensitivity.</li></ol></div><div><div><div><div><h3><strong>Troubleshooting Degassing Issues in HPLC</strong></h3></div></div></div></div><div><h4><strong>1) Cycling of output (pressure or baseline)</strong></h4><p>Cycling patterns in pressure or the chromatogram baseline often indicate poor compressibility at the pump heads. This may result from insufficient degassing efficiency, where adding a second degassing chamber can help. It can also cause air to enter the system due to improperly connected tubing to or from the HPLC solvent degasser. Also, improper connections of the tubing on the HPLC solvent degasser can also allow air to enter the system, causing fluctuations in pressure or baseline.</p><h4><strong>2) Baseline noise</strong></h4><p>Noise on the baseline of a chromatogram may indicate problems with the gas flow system. High gas flow rates can cause short-term noise, while baseline drift (long-term fluctuations) may be due to contaminants being flushed out from a partially clogged gas line. Additionally, an unstable gas flow output can also contribute to baseline noise.</p><h4><strong>3) Leakages</strong></h4><p>Leaks often occur due to incompatibility between solvents and degasser materials. For instance, tetrahydrofuran (THF) can dry and crack degasser membranes. Additionally, improperly seated tubing connections in or out of the degasser can allow leaks to develop.</p><h4><strong>4) Blockages</strong></h4><p>Blockages create pressure ripples as the pump struggles to draw solvent, sometimes causing cavitation. They may result from algae growth, crystallization of buffer salts, or clogged inlet filters. Troubleshooting involves disconnecting outlet tubing to check for continuous solvent flow, while prevention requires filtering solvents, using clean solutions, and flushing lines regularly, especially after system shutdowns.</p><h4><strong>5) General considerations</strong></h4><p>Degasser issues are often linked with the mobile phase quality. Using poorly prepared or contaminated solvents can lead to persistent problems. Maintaining clean, filtered, and fresh solvents helps ensure smooth operation and minimizes downtime.</p></div></div>

Degassing Techniques in HPLC: Inline vs Offline

Everything to know about osmolality

<p><strong>Our Library never stops expanding. What are the most recent contributions to LabRulezLCMS Library in the week of 13th July 2026? Check out new documents from the field of liquid phase, especially HPLC and LC/MS techniques!</strong></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size:20px;">👉 </span><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library"><span style="font-size:20px;"><strong>SEARCH THE LARGEST REPOSITORY OF DOCUMENTS ABOUT LCMS AND RELATED TECHNIQUES</strong></span></a></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><strong>👉 Need info about different analytical techniques?</strong> Peek into <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library"><strong>LabRulezGCMS</strong></a> or <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://icpms.labrulez.com/library"><strong>LabRulezICPMS</strong></a> libraries.</p></blockquote><p>This week we bring you posters by <strong>Agilent Technologies / ASMS, Shimadzu / ASMS, Thermo Fisher Scientific / HPLC Symposium </strong>and<strong> Waters Corporation / HPLC Symposium </strong>and technical note by<strong> KNAUER!</strong></p><h3><strong>1. Agilent Technologies / ASMS: Intact Protein Analysis in Plasma Using Automated 2D-LC/TOF with Multiple Heart-Cutting</strong></h3><ul><li>Poster</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/po_intact_protein_mhc_2d_lc_tof_wp_679_asms_2026_en_agilent_edb54f4854.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><p>Direct intact and top-down protein analysis enables comprehensive characterization of proteoforms, post-translational modifications, and fragments that are often lost in bottom-up workflows.1 However, intact mass analysis in complex biological matrices such as whole plasma is challenged by extreme dynamic range and ion suppression, commonly necessitating affinity-based enrichment.&nbsp;</p><p>Here, we demonstrate a non-affinity, orthogonal separation strategy using a 2D-LC/TOF workflow with multi-heart-cutting for native intact protein analysis directly in plasma. Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) trastuzumab and antibody-drug conjugate T-DM1, were used as model systems to evaluate performance.&nbsp;</p><p>The workflow employs an Agilent 1290 Infinity III 2D-LC system for orthogonal separations and precise multiple heart-cutting, coupled to a high-resolution, high-sensitivity Agilent 6230C Accurate Mass TOF LC/MS System.</p><h4><strong>Experimental</strong></h4><h5><strong>Instrumentation&nbsp;</strong></h5><ul><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=1290+Infinity+III+2D-LC"><strong>Agilent 1290 Infinity III 2D-LC system </strong></a>comprised the following modules:&nbsp;<ul><li>1290 Infinity III Bio Multisampler with Thermostat (G7137A)&nbsp;</li><li>1290 Infinity III Multicolumn Thermostat (G7116B)&nbsp;</li><li>1290 Infinity III Diode Array Detector (G7117B) with Max-Light cartridge cell (G7117-60020)&nbsp;</li><li>1260 Infinity III Bio Flexible Pump (G7131C)&nbsp;</li><li>1290 Infinity III Bio High-speed Pump (G7132A)&nbsp;</li><li>1290 Infinity Valve Drive (G1170A) with 2D-LC ASM Valve (G5643B)&nbsp;</li><li>Two 1290 Infinity III Valve Drives (G1170A) with multiple heart-cutting valves (G5642-64000) equipped with 40 µL Bio loops&nbsp;</li><li>1290 Infinity III Valve Drive (G1170A) with a 2- position/6-port valve (G4231A) (used as a diverter valve)&nbsp;</li></ul></li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=6230C"><strong>Agilent 6230C Accurate Mass TOF LC/MS System</strong></a></li></ul><h5><strong>LC/MS Analysis&nbsp;</strong></h5><p>Data acquisition and analysis were carried out using <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=MassHunter+acquisition"><strong>MassHunter acquisition</strong></a> (12.2), <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=BioConfirm"><strong>BioConfirm</strong></a> (12.1) and <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=MassHunter+Qualitative+Analysis"><strong>MassHunter Qualitative Analysis </strong></a>(13.0) software.</p><h4><strong>Conclusions</strong></h4><ul><li>Agilent 2D-LC enables direct native MS analysis of intact proteins from plasma without affinity-based enrichment.&nbsp;</li><li>UV-guided and multiple heart-cutting simplify 2D-LC method development and provide high-resolution isolation of native proteins from complex biological matrices such as plasma.&nbsp;</li><li>The Agilent 6230C Accurate Mass TOF delivers high sensitivity and excellent mass accuracy, enabling confident intact protein characterization under native conditions.</li></ul><h3><strong>2. KNAUER: Mind the pressure in preparative up-scaling – effects of particle size and solvent composition on back pressure</strong></h3><ul><li>Technical note</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/VTN_0051_knauer_mind_the_pressure_in_preparative_up_scaling_effects_of_particle_size_and_solvent_comp_12e49884d3.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><p>The back pressure of a chromatographic system is generated by the system components, the capillaries, the column, the solvent, and the applied flow rate. Each system has a maximum pressure which it can sustain, and therefore the pressure must be monitored as it is a limiting factor during method development. The back pressure generated by a column is dependent on the particle size and its length. The development of a preparative method is ideally performed on an analytical scale and after optimization the method is then scaled up to preparative scale.</p><p>As preparative HPLC systems normally have lower maximum pressures, it is important to keep the generated pressure in the range of the later preparative system.&nbsp;</p><p>The larger the particles of the column material are, the lower will be the generated back pressure. With increasing particle size, the resolution is decreasing at the same time. Depending on the separation task, the resolution can be a critical point, and it is important to find the right compromise between resolution and backpressure. Additionally, larger particles are significantly less price intensive, which is another factor to be considered especially for large scale purifications. Often solvent mixtures of water with acetonitrile, methanol or ethanol are used for reverse phased methods. Depending on the organic solvent composition, the generated back pressure differs significantly which could be reduced by changing the solvent composition slightly or the organic solvent if possible. The back pressure generated by the solvent will not or only slightly change during the up-scaling process.&nbsp;</p><p>Here, the influence of particle size, flow rate and solvent composition on the back pressure was evaluated. Further, a practical scale-up was performed to evaluate the values obtained on analytical scale to those in larger scale.</p><h4><strong>User Tips:&nbsp;</strong></h4><ul><li>What is the finale scale you want to operate later?&nbsp;</li><li>What are the pressure limitations of the preparative system?&nbsp;</li><li>Be aware of the solvent back pressure&nbsp;</li><li>Consider particle size not only for best separation&nbsp;</li><li>Consider the flow rate</li></ul><h4><strong>MATERIAL AND METHODS&nbsp;</strong></h4><ul><li><strong>Pump: </strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/2372"><strong>AZURA® P 6.1LHPG</strong></a>, 10 ml, sst&nbsp;</li><li><strong>Autosampler: </strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/2375"><strong>AZURA AS 6.1L</strong></a></li><li><strong>Detector:</strong> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/2423"><strong>UV AZURA DAD 2.1L&nbsp;</strong></a></li><li><strong>Flow cell: </strong>Pressure proof 10 mm, 10 µl, 300 bar&nbsp;</li><li><strong>Thermostat:</strong> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/2376"><strong>CT2.1&nbsp;</strong></a></li><li><strong>Columns:&nbsp;</strong><ul><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1633"><strong>Eurospher II 100-5 C18, 150 x 4.6 mm&nbsp;</strong></a></li><li>Eurospher II 100-10 C18, 150 x 4.6 mm&nbsp;</li><li>Eurospher II 100-15 C18, 150 x 4.6 mm&nbsp;</li><li>Eurospher II 100-20/45 C18, 150 x 4.6 mm &nbsp;</li></ul></li><li><strong>Software&nbsp;</strong><ul><li>ClarityChrom 10.1&nbsp;</li><li>ClarityChrom 10.1 PDA extension</li></ul></li></ul><h4><strong>CONCLUSION&nbsp;</strong></h4><p>The back pressures of four C18 150 x 4.6 mm columns, which differed only in particle size were measured and compared at different flow rates and solvent compositions. As expected, the 5 µm column showed the highest and the 20/45 µm column the lowest back pressure at all tested conditions. The pressure curves of ethanol and methanol gradients were similar, with a maximum pressure at approximately 50% solvent. The pressure curve of the acetonitrile gradient differed from the other two, showing the highest pressure at a lower organic solvent content of approximately 35%, after which the pressure dropped. Ethanol showed the highest pressure, followed by methanol and then acetonitrile. Determining the column back pressure at an analytical scale is an important tool during preparative method development. Ideally, if a linear scale up from the analytical to the preparative scale is conducted, the column back pressure should stay the same. This helps to predict if the method can be scaled up to the desired size in terms of back pressure.</p><h3><strong>3. Shimadzu / ASMS: Enhanced Quantification of Emerging UV Filter Contaminants in Drinking Water Using Optimized LC-MS/MS Technique</strong></h3><ul><li>Poster</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/TP_121_Enhanced_Quantification_of_Emerging_UV_Filter_Contaminants_in_Drinking_Water_Using_Optimized_LC_MSMS_Technique_e733c64828.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><p>Ultraviolet (UV) filter chemicals from sunscreens and personal care products are increasingly recognized as emerging contaminants of concern in drinking water1 . Their persistence and reported biological effects highlight the need for sensitive and reliable monitoring approaches2 . The objectives were to optimize quantitation to achieve ppt level detection without offline extraction and assess the occurrence of these compounds in multiple drinking water matrices. In this study, 20 UV filters were analyzed using a <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=1&amp;search=LCMS-8060RX"><strong>Shimadzu LCMS8060RX triple quadrupole mass spectrometer.</strong></a></p><h4><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4><p>A highly sensitive, precise, and robust direct injection LC–MS/MS method enables sub-ppt to high-ppb quantification of 20 UV filters in drinking water. Overall, the highly sensitive and robust Shimadzu LCMS-8060RX Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer combined with this extraction-free workflow provides a simple, reliable, and high-throughput approach for quantifying emerging UV filters at ng/L concentrations in drinking water.</p><h3><strong>4. Thermo Fisher Scientific / HPLC Symposium: Comparison of biocompatible and inert UHPLC systems for LC-UV quantitation of large RNA</strong></h3><ul><li>Poster</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/po_004752_hplc_vanquish_amplify_metal_sensitive_analyte_analysis_po004752_na_en_ff99cfde49.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><p>Accurate LC-UV analysis of large RNA and oligonucleotide therapeutics requires highly inert chromatographic flow paths because interactions between the negatively charged phosphodiester backbone and metallic surfaces can cause analyte loss, peak broadening, and reduced quantitative sensitivity, particularly at low concentration.&nbsp;</p><p>Here, an inert UHPLC system – Vanquish Amplify system, incorporating inert-coated flow path components was evaluated against a biocompatible UHPLC configuration using MP35N alloy capillaries and additionally against a commercially available inert UHPLC platform. Large RNA fragments of 500 and 5000 nucleotides were analyzed by IP-RPLC to assess the difference between these systems. To further investigate flow path interactions, adenosine 5′- (α,β-methylene) diphosphate (AMPcP), a metal-sensitive analyte, was analyzed alongside adenosine, a noninteracting reference compound.</p><h5><strong>Material and Methods</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Instrumentation: </strong>Thermo Scientific Vanquish Amplify UHPLC system</li><li><strong>Column:</strong> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=3&amp;search=SurePac+Oligo"><strong>Thermo Scientific SurePac Oligo RP MDi HPLC column</strong></a>,<br>2.5 µm 2.1 X 50 mm (P/N: 43712-052132</li><li><strong>Data Analysis: </strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/76"><strong>The Thermo Scientific Chromeleon Software 7.3.2 MUc Chromatography Data System (CDS)</strong></a> was used for all data acquisition and analysis.</li></ul><h4><strong>Conclusions&nbsp;</strong></h4><p>Using AMPcP with the Vanquish Amplify system demonstrated up to a twofold increase in sensitivity compared to systems with MP35N fluidics under conditions where metal interactions are most pronounced&nbsp;</p><p>For large RNA, the Vanquish Amplify UHPLC system delivered 1.25–1.35× higher signal intensity compared to systems with MP35N fluidics, enabling reduced sample consumption and improved quantitative reliability.&nbsp;</p><p>The Vanquish Amplify UHPLC system demonstrated comparable system inertness under the tested conditions for larger RNA fragments (5,000 nt) and slightly better system inertness for smaller fragments (500 nt) in this study than the MaxPeak HPS containing system, based on peak height and area comparisons using an external UV detector</p><h3><strong>5. Waters Corporation / HPLC Symposium: Development and Transfer of Quantitative Analytical Methods using Universal Detectors</strong></h3><ul><li>Poster</li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/720009493_8cbe4c3cc2.pdf"><strong>Full PDF for download</strong></a></li></ul><div><div><section><div><div><div><div><div><div><p>Universal detectors such as <strong>Charged Aerosol Detection (CAD)</strong> and <strong>Evaporative Light Scattering Detection (ELSD)</strong> provide valuable alternatives to traditional LC detectors including UV, fluorescence, and mass spectrometry, particularly for analytes lacking chromophores. Although both detectors are suitable for quantitative analysis, they rely on different detection principles—CAD measures the electrical charge transferred to aerosol particles, whereas ELSD detects light scattered by dried analyte particles. Because both detectors exhibit non-linear responses, quantitative methods typically require calibration models such as log-log linear or quadratic regression rather than conventional linear calibration. The poster discusses key considerations for developing robust quantitative methods and highlights the challenges associated with transferring methods between different universal detection platforms.</p><p>To demonstrate detector transferability, the authors migrated a <strong>HILIC method for sugar analysis in fruit juice</strong> from ELSD to CAD. The separation was performed on a <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/306"><strong>Waters Arc HPLC System</strong></a> equipped with an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=5&amp;search=XBridge+BEH+Amide"><strong>XBridge BEH Amide</strong></a><strong> (4.6 × 150 mm, 2.5 μm)</strong> column using a water/acetonitrile gradient containing triethylamine. While the chromatographic conditions remained unchanged, CAD detector parameters were optimized. Both detectors produced highly comparable quantitative performance across a calibration range of <strong>50–1000 μg/mL</strong>, achieving calibration coefficients (R²) above <strong>0.995</strong>, area RSD values below <strong>1.5%</strong>, and nearly identical concentrations of fructose, sorbitol, glucose, and sucrose in an apple juice sample. These results demonstrate that quantitative HILIC methods can be successfully transferred between ELSD and CAD with only detector-specific optimization.</p><p>The poster also evaluates method transfer between different CAD platforms using the <strong>USP Deoxycholic Acid assay</strong>. The method was implemented on a <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/198"><strong>Waters ACQUITY UPLC H-Class PLUS System</strong></a> with an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/1823"><strong>XBridge BEH C18</strong></a><strong> (4.6 × 150 mm, 3.5 μm)</strong> column and compared against a competing LC/CAD system. After scaling the method according to <strong>USP Chapter &lt;621&gt;</strong>, both systems met all USP system suitability requirements, including repeatability and signal-to-noise criteria. Quantitative results for deoxycholic acid and related impurities were virtually identical, confirming that validated CAD methods can be reliably transferred between different vendors' LC/CAD platforms without compromising analytical performance.</p><p>Overall, the study demonstrates that both ELSD and CAD are robust universal detection techniques for quantitative liquid chromatography. While method transfer between identical detector types is generally straightforward, successful migration between ELSD and CAD—or between different CAD systems—requires careful optimization of detector parameters while preserving chromatographic conditions. The presented workflows illustrate that with appropriate calibration and detector tuning, laboratories can achieve equivalent sensitivity, precision, and quantitative accuracy, facilitating method standardization and transfer across analytical platforms.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></section></div></div>

News from LabRulezLCMS Library - Week 29, 2026

Article

Academy

Video

Poster

Everything from the world of analytical chemistry in one place. We connect people in solving their problems. At Labrulez you will find all the necessary information easily, quickly and clearly. Stop searching and start finding.

LabRulez

Phenomenex is a global technology leader committed to developing novel analytical chemistry solutions that solve the separation and purification challenges of researchers in industrial, government and academic laboratories.

Phenomenex

Based in Berlin, KNAUER is a medium-sized, owner-managed company that has been serving the sciences since 1962. We develop and manufacture scientific instruments of superior quality for liquid chromatography, including: Analytical HPLC/UHPLC, Preparative HPLC, Fast protein liquid chromatography (FPLC), Multi-column chromatography/Simulated moving bed (SMB) chromatography. High pressure dosing, in-line detection systems, and osmometry are additional business areas.

KNAUER

Separation Science

Metrohm

Mettler-Toledo

Agilent Technologies

Technology Networks

Thermo Fisher Scientific

Shimadzu Corporation

Waters Corporation

<p><strong>GPC/SEC is an important technique for determining the molecular weight distribution of synthetic and natural polymers and for comparing batch to batch quality.  It is a valuable technique for those doing polymer analysis.  Specific criteria should be considered when developing or optimizing your method to ensure the success of the application:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Why determining molecular weight is important</li>
<li>Key parameters for solvent and column selection</li>
<li>Column type options, their features, and benefits</li>
<li>Importance of polymer standards selection and calibrating</li>
<li>Modes of Detection and expanding the information for your polymer</li>
</ul>
<p>Practical steps, helpful product information, and application examples will be provided to assist you with selecting the best GPC/SEC solution for your polymer sample.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Jean Lane (Application Engineer, Agilent Technologies, Inc.)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Jean has been employed with Agilent since Nov 2010 in technical and applications support and has a primary role supporting Agilent’s full line of LC columns and consumables, which also includes support for Agilent’s GPC/SEC product line. She came to Agilent thru acquisition of Varian and the former Polymer Laboratories. Jean has 20 plus years of technical and applications support for both HPLC and GPC consumable products. In addition to practical chromatography experience in the laboratory, she has had many, many years in her technical role involving customer support providing assistance and troubleshooting for customer chromatography issues.</p>
</blockquote>


Agilent Technologies: Your GPC/SEC Toolbox – Have You Got What You Need for Your Polymer Analysis?

Your GPC/SEC Toolbox – Have You Got What You Need for Your Polymer Analysis?

Practical steps, helpful product information, and application examples will be provided to assist you with selecting the best GPC/SEC solution.

Your GPC/SEC Toolbox for Your Polymer Analysis

<p><strong>This exclusive roundtable event will host experienced industry leaders in the PFAS analytical testing field to share their own experiences and discuss various topics that will help empower PFAS analytical testing laboratories to future-proof themselves, in this constantly evolving area of environmental concern.</strong></p>
<p>Topics that will be covered include:</p>
<ul>
<li>The current landscape, market trends and future state of PFAS analysis</li>
<li>Review of current and emerging US and EU regulatory requirements for PFAS analytical testing</li>
<li>Analytical technologies to help tackle PFAS testing projects of any size or scope, faster</li>
</ul>
<p>Benefits and learning outcomes from attending this event:</p>
<ul>
<li>Learn about current and anticipated challenges of routine PFAS analysis and tips for how to overcome them</li>
<li>Understand the impact of ever-changing regulatory demands and why it is essential for testing laboratories to future-proof themselves</li>
<li>Discover new, cutting-edge techniques for PFAS analysis that can impact overall laboratory productivity and efficiency</li>
<li>Q&amp;A with technology thought leaders on key issues faced by scientists in this field</li>
</ul>
<p>Who should attend:</p>
<ul>
<li>Environmental analytical testing laboratory leaders</li>
<li>Lab technicians, lab managers, lab directors</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Lee Ferguson (Duke University, North Carolina, USA)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Dr P. Lee Ferguson is an Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at Duke University in Durham, NC, USA. He received B.S. degrees from the University of South Carolina in Chemistry and Marine Science in 1997 before earning a Ph.D. in Coastal Oceanography at State University of New York – Stony Brook in 2002. His postdoctoral research was conducted in the area of proteomics at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, WA, USA. Before joining Duke, Dr. Ferguson was an Assistant and Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of South Carolina.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> John Quick (ALS Environmental, UK)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>John Quick is the principal scientist at ALS Environmental in Coventry. John’s background is in chromatography and over the last years John and his team has developed methods to analyse all the compounds included in the CIP program (A UK version of the Water Framework Directive) with detection levels not seen by any other commercial laboratory in the past.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Vladimir Nikiforov (NILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Dr Vladimir Nikiforov graduated from St. Petersburg State University in 1986, got a degree in 1990 (Synthesis of fluoroketones for extraction of anions) and continued with the same university doing research and teaching in Synthetic organic, Physical organic, Environmental chemistry until 2010. From 2010 to 2014 he was a head of laboratory of migration of POPs in the Center of Ecological Safety of the Russian Academy of Sciences and then joined NILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research. His current research interests include PFAS and other organofluorines, Non-target and suspect screening, QSAR, development of analytical methods for new pollutants and microplastics in al matrices, and in air samples in particular.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Christopher P. Higgins (Colorado School of Mines)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Christopher P. Higgins is an environmental chemist at the Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Higgins’ received his A.B. in Chemistry from Harvard University, and graduate degrees in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Stanford University. He joined Mines in 2009, attaining the title of University Distinguished Professor in 2022. His research focuses on the movement of contaminants in the environment. In particular, he studies chemical fate and transport in natural and engineered systems, with a focus on poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Dr. Higgins has authored more than 135 peer-reviewed publications. His research has been supported by NSF, NIH, EPA, USDA, and the DoD.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Ed George (Thermo Fisher Scientific)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Ed George has a BS in Chemistry from the University of Notre Dame with concentration in Environmental Science. He worked for 15 years in the environmental laboratory industry, holding positions of Lab Technician, Lab Manager, and R&amp;D Manager, responsible for developing novel sample preparation and analytical methods in soil and water on GC/MS/MS and LC-MS/MS platforms. He participated in several collaborative method development projects with the USEPA. In 2014, he joined Thermo Fisher Scientific and is currently a Senior Applications Scientist. He has worked closely with key collaborators on food safety and environmental projects in universities and industry and has recently developed workflow applications for pesticide and veterinary drug residues in food on both LC-MS/MS and high-resolution MS platforms.</p>
</blockquote>


Pixabay/Anja: Why is PFAS testing so challenging?

Why is PFAS testing so challenging?

This exclusive roundtable event will host experienced industry leaders in the PFAS analytical testing field to share their own experiences and discuss.

<p><strong>Reversed phase column chromatography is commonplace in quality assessment of drugs. This usually involves the use of aqueous buffers, acetonitrile and/ or methanol as a mobile phase and commonly used UV detection.  But what happens when excipients and drugs don&#39;t contain a chromophore?  These samples can&#39;t be identified and quantified by UV detection. Our answer is Charged Aerosol Detection (CAD), which is an excellent alternative and works as a universal detector for almost all non-volatile and many semi-volatile compounds.</strong></p>
<p>Please join this webinar to hear about the work of our guest speaker, Ulrike Holzgrabe, from the department of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry at University of Wuerzburg.  In her presentation, she will share her experience of using charged aerosol detection as an alternative in the quality assessment of drugs.</p>
<p>CAD has the flexibility and performance for analytical R&amp;D, and the simplicity and reproducibility needed for manufacturing QA/QC and can be used for the analysis of pharmaceuticals in both large and small molecules. It is a reliable and an easy-to-use solution to quantify novel compounds without the need for compound specific calibration and is a key technology in our high throughput library purification platform.</p>
<p>Learn how CAD can be applied in your work with tips, tricks, pointers, and expert advice. </p>
<p>Join our panel of experts for a roundtable and Q&amp;A discussion </p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Ulrike Holzgrabe</strong> (Institut für Pharmazie und Lebensmittelchemie University of Wuerzburg)</li>
<li><strong>Paul Gamache</strong> (Director - Research and Development, Thermo Fisher Scientific)</li>
<li><strong>Frank Steiner</strong> (Senior Manager- Product Applications &amp; Scientific Advisor, Thermo Fisher Scientific)</li>
<li><strong>Tibor Muellner</strong> (Senior Product Applications Specialist, Thermo Fisher Scientific)</li>
</ul>
<p>We invite you to submit any questions you may wish to be discussed on this registration page.</p>
<h5>Who should attend:</h5>
<ul>
<li>Laboratory managers and directors </li>
<li>Technology leaders </li>
<li>Principal scientists </li>
<li>Laboratory analyst</li>
</ul>


Thermo Scientific: No chromophore – no HPLC analysis?

No chromophore – no HPLC analysis?

Ulrike Holzgrabe will share her experience of using charged aerosol detection as an alternative in the quality assessment of drugs.

<p><strong>How to determine AOX and AOF by Combustion Elemental Analysis and Combustion Ion Chromatography?</strong></p>
<p>As the presence of organically bound halogens (AOX) and organically bound fluorine (AOF) in the environment is coming under scrutiny in many countries, there is a need for rapid screening of these parameters in environmental samples. </p>
<p>In a joint webinar by Analytik Jena and Metrohm, Christian Koch (Analytik Jena) and Theresa Steurer (Metrohm) present Combustion Elemental Analysis and Combustion Ion Chromatography (CIC) as a viable solution to determine the sum parameters AOX and AOF.<br/>In contrast to other techniques CIC can determine the individual sum parameters of the individual halogens, e.g., AOF, which is a screening parameter for per-and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). Thus, CIC can provide a fast and accurate picture of the overall contamination levels before performing targeted analysis to identify individual PFAS.</p>
<p>As sample preparation is a crucial step in both techniques, this webinar puts a special focus on procedures making sure that only the organic halogen compounds are measured and any interfering compounds are removed prior to analysis (see ISO 9562; EPA 1650C, and notably recently published DIN 38409-59).</p>
<p>This webinar is intended for lab managers and analytical chemists looking for solutions to the challenges posed by AOX and PFAS monitoring in wastewater, surface water, and other water matrices.</p>
<p>Participants in this webinar will learn about:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>the regulatory background</strong></li>
<li><strong>the challenges of sample preparation</strong></li>
<li><strong>combustion / pyrohydrolysis as an automated sample preparation technique</strong></li>
<li><strong>the analytical procedures for analysis of AOX by Combustion Elemental Analysis</strong></li>
<li><strong>the analytical procedures for analysis of AOF by Combustion Ion Chromatography</strong></li>
</ul>


Metrohm: Monitoring PFAS and other organically bound halogens in water and wastewater

Monitoring PFAS and other organically bound halogens in water and wastewater

How to determine AOX and AOF by Combustion Elemental Analysis and Combustion Ion Chromatography

PFAS and organically bound halogens in water and wastewater

<p><strong>The field of synthetic biology revolves around the design-build-test-learn (DBTL) cycle, where biological components are adjusted in multiple iterations. Automation allows synthetic biologists to spend less time pipetting liquids and devote more time understanding the science and finding creative solutions to problems.</strong></p>
<p>By combining automation for sample preparation with rapid separation methods we provide a phenotyping workflow suited to the needs of the synthetic biology community.</p>
<p>Attend this webinar to discover:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Automation solutions for synthetic biology applications</strong></li>
<li><strong>Rapid separation method workflows</strong></li>
<li><strong>How to improve confidence in annotation using ion mobility</strong></li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Dr. Tessa Moses (Metabolomics Specialist and Facility Manager of EdinOmics, Center for Engineering Biology, The University of Edinburgh)</p>
</blockquote>


Technology Networks: An Automated Workflow for Untargeted Metabolomics of Complex Biological Samples

An Automated Workflow for Untargeted Metabolomics of Complex Biological Samples

By combining automation for sample preparation with rapid separation methods we provide a phenotyping workflow for the synthetic biology community.

An Automated Workflow for Untargeted Metabolomics

<p><strong>Join us as we launch the first ever purpose-built HPLC designed to improve outcomes in QC labs. This breakthrough LC solution puts ease-of-use and simplicity at the heart of your experience.</strong></p>
<p>In this virtual launch event you’ll find out how this innovative new HPLC system guides you through the entire QC analytical workflow. Discover how exclusive features help reduce the number of failed runs and deviations while saving you time, money, and stress. In this virtual launch event you’ll also learn  how this intuitive new HPLC System:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Intuitively prevents up to 40% of common errors</strong>*</li>
<li><strong>Provides fast, simple guidance at the point of need</strong></li>
<li><strong>Boosts productivity and capacity through effective resource utilization and error-free operation</strong></li>
<li><strong>Drives workflow efficiencies and quality improvements</strong></li>
<li><strong>Improves data integrity</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>Intuitive Simplicity is just days away. Don’t miss out. Register for our virtual launch event.</p>
<ul>
<li>Based on Waters&#39; market research in 2022, surveying 56 global Pharma QC labs running &gt;25 systems</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Paula Hong (Principal Consulting Scientist, Waters Corporation)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Paula Hong is a Principal Consulting Scientist Waters Corporation, where she has worked for over 15 years. She currently manages a team of 10+ scientists conducting instrument product development. Paula began her career at Waters in the chemistry division focusing on novel column chemistries for biopharmaceutical applications, including studies on the first hybrid sub 2-µm SEC column. Her more recent work has focused on instrument development.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Tracy Hibbs (Principal Consulting Marketing Manager, Waters Corporation)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Tracy has worked for Waters Corporation since 1999 and has held a variety of positions including Technical Trainer, Business Impact Consultant, Training Manager for Informatics and Data Integrity, and currently, Principal Consulting Marketing Manager focusing on Informatics solutions. Tracy provides support for Waters Empower Software Suite and is concentrated on developing laboratory data management software solutions that help organizations achieve their scientific and operational objectives in regulated environments. Prior to joining Waters, Tracy was a Research Scientist where she gained experience in chromatography and the associated data systems.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Debbie Francis (Principal Consulting Product Marketing Manager in QA/QC, Waters Corporation)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Debbie has worked for Waters since 2018, and has held multiple product marketing positions for Mass Spectrometry systems, and is currently Principal Consulting Product Marketing Manager in QA/QC, focusing on next generation systems, where she has been leading the commercialization of the new era of simplicity in HPLC. Debbie began her career as a scientist in clinical laboratories, before moving into marketing, and prior to joining Waters held various regional and global marketing roles within the life science industry,</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Dr Stephanie Harden (Manager, Waters Global Pharmaceutical Marketing, Waters Corporation)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Stephanie is the manager of Waters global product marketing and applications teams, with 20+ years of experience in product and segment marketing. She has a proven track record leading cross-functional teams, in B2B digital/omni-channel marketing and strategic program development and strategy execution. Specialising in pharmaceutical quality by design, the analytical procedure lifecycle, and process analytical technology, Stephanie is a highly cited author with a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Bristol, UK.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong>  Sukhdev Bangar (Principal Product Manager – HPLC, Waters Corporation)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Sukhdev Bangar is a Principal Product Manager at Waters Corporation in Waters QA/QC Divison. He has over 15 years’ experience in the area of LC and LC-MS applications. Starting life in industry at GSK working with OTC treatments of Dermatological ailments, Inhalation drug testing at 3M, followed by DMPK at AstraZeneca. In 2005 he joined Waters in the Global MS product management group working with R&amp;D to evaluate new MS hardware and software features from an end user perspective. In 2010 he joined the Americas MS demo lab and after a few years became the Team Leader for the Pharma group, leading the efforts in Quan/Qual application Demo’s. Since 2019 Sukhdev has held his current role working out of Waters HQ. His responsibilities include Waters next generation HPLC product line.</p>
</blockquote>


Waters Corporation: Change is coming in HPLC: A Waters virtual launch event

Change is coming in HPLC: A Waters virtual launch event

Say ‘hi’ to your new lab ally at the virtual launch event of our new HPLC on March 22, 2023.

<p><strong>Glycosylation analysis is an essential part of mAb characterization as they can affect immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.</strong></p>
<p>Sialic acid capping at the nonreducing terminal of N- or O-glycans can serve a key role in mediating the effectiveness of therapeutic glycoproteins</p>
<p>Associated challeges for such analyses are:</p>
<ol>
<li>End to end approach System columns, reagents &amp; standards.</li>
<li>Senstivity, reproducibility &amp; accuracy </li>
<li>Sample throughput&quot;</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Dr. Nithyakalyani SriRangan (Ph.D. Head of Syngene-CAPS (Center for Advanced Protein Studies) BIRAC funded facility, Syngene international Unlimited)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>A recipient of the prestigious Marie Curie, has obtained a Ph.D in Pharmaceutical Biology from the University of Grefswald, Germany. Having core expertise in MS based protein characterization and collaboration experience with clients from UK, France and other Scandinavian countries.</p>
</blockquote>


Agilent Technologies: Glycan & Sialic Acid Analysis - So Rapid & So Easy

Glycan & Sialic Acid Analysis - So Rapid & So Easy

Glycosylation analysis is an essential part of mAb characterization as they can affect immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.

<p><strong>Size-based separation using size exclusion chromatography (SEC) is a standard technique used to analyse size variants and monitor the purity level of biotherapeutics. More complex molecules such as antibody drug conjugates, or ADCs, may be more challenging due to the presence of hydrophobic cytotoxic drugs that can result in nonideal behaviour with many size exclusion chromatography columns. With increasing challenges to address assessment of this key critical quality attributes, Agilent Workflow Solution for Aggregate Analysis makes sure that you achieve your scientific compliance and business goals.</strong></p>
<p>In this webinar, we will discuss:</p>
<ul>
<li>Column suggestions for separation and quantification of Aggregates and Fragments</li>
<li>Fast-SEC for high throughput analysis while maintaining good resolution</li>
<li>Eliminating secondary interactions</li>
<li>Enhancing column lifetime</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Dr. Rajni Mujoo (Technical Support Specialist, Chemistries &amp; Supplies Division, Agilent Technologies)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Dr. Rajni is working with us as Technical Support Specialist in Chemistries and Supplies Division at Agilent Technologies since 2011. She has a Ph.D degree in Food Science from CFTRI, Mysore and Post Doctorate from Department Of Food Science, Michigan State University. She also has four International Presentations &amp; 13 publications in reputed National &amp; International journals to her credit. Rajni has a total work experience of 16 yrs spread across research and Sales building expertise in different Instrument techniques.</p>
</blockquote>


Agilent Technologies: Analysis of Biotherapeutics using Size Exclusion Chromatography

Analysis of Biotherapeutics using Size Exclusion Chromatography

Size-based separation using SEC is a standard technique used to analyse size variants and monitor the purity level of biotherapeutics.

Biotherapeutics using Size Exclusion Chromatography

<p><strong>Mass spectrometry imaging (MSI) began its development in 1997 with the publication of “Molecular Imaging of Biological Samples: Localization of Peptides and Proteins Using MALDI-TOF MS” by Richard Caprioli et al. in Analytical Chemistry. Over the past 25 years, there have been numerous developments in terms of samples preparation, matrix application, and instrumentation that have enabled increases in figures of merit related to MSI.</strong></p>
<p>Each improvement is accompanied by an increase in method complexity and price tag, while many users are seeking an entry-level instrument to perform simpler experiments that still produce spatially resolved mass data.</p>
<p>To this end, we have tested a benchtop Shimadzu MALDI-8020 capable of MALDI MSI and employed simpler sample preparation techniques.</p>
<p>As an introduction to MSI, we share the optimization of relevant parameters and matrices as well as the results of relevant imaging experiments.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Dr. Kevin Tucker (Associate Professor, Analytical Chemistry, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Dr. Kevin Tucker received his Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011. Dr. Tucker’s research lies at the nexus of food, energy, and water. We focus on the detection of pharmaceutical and personal care products within local and regional waterways and the surrounding soil systems including agricultural fields as well as modeling laboratory exposure using invertebrate organisms. Dr. Tucker focuses on method development in mass spectrometry to address each of these research directions.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Nazim Boutaghou, Ph.D. (Life Science Product Manager, Shimadzu Scientific Instruments)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Nazim Boutaghou is the Life Science Product Manager at Shimadzu Scientific Instruments (SSI). He oversees SSI’s wide portfolio of MALDI instrumentation, including the newly released Benchtop Imaging Upgrade for the MALDI-80X0 instruments. Nazim Boutaghou graduated with a Master’s in Chemistry and a minor in Biology from the University of Bordeaux 1 (Bordeaux, France) later received a Master’s in Business Management from the Bordeaux Institute of Business Administration (IAE). He moved to the US in 2006 to further his knowledge in Analytical Chemistry and Mass Spectrometry, joining Dr. Richard Cole’s group at the University of New Orleans. He graduated with a Ph.D. in 2011 and joined Shimadzu in 2013 as an Applications Scientist specializing in MALDI-based analyses.</p>
</blockquote>


Shimadzu: MALDI Mass Spectrometry Imaging for the Masses: An Introduction to MALDI MSI

MALDI Mass Spectrometry Imaging for the Masses: An Introduction to MALDI MSI

As an introduction to MSI, we share the optimization of relevant parameters and matrices as well as the results of relevant imaging experiments.

MALDI Mass Spectrometry Imaging for the Masses

<ul>
<li><strong>What is HPLC analysis used for, and what are the calibration standards</strong></li>
<li><strong>The importance of efficient data handling for HPLC analysis</strong></li>
<li><strong>Solutions for error-free data transfer from balance to HPLC</strong></li>
<li><strong>An overview of the improved HPLC workflow, including the live solution demonstration</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>HPLC analysis is an important technique used in most quality control or analytical laboratories. Since some critical decisions about product batches are made based on the results of these analyses, they must be correct and reliable.</p>
<p>To ensure accurate results are obtained at the end of the process, it is equally important to ensure that all steps in the process, including the initial weighing of samples and preparing the required concentrations, are carefully executed and that all relevant data is recorded correctly.</p>
<p>Any errors in weighing data or calculations or even incomplete metadata in the initial stages will be propagated downstream, leading to errors in the final result. The implications of bad decisions based on incorrect analytical results could be disastrous.  </p>
<p>Join our webinar with METTLER TOLEDO and Agilent Technologies experts and learn how to ensure seamless, error-free data flow from balance to analytical results.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Andrea Brütsch (Global Product Manager | METTLER TOLEDO)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Andrea Brütsch holds a master&#39;s degree in Chemistry and Business Studies from the University of Zurich.<br/>After various experiences at METTLER TOLEDO, Andrea wrote a paper on the trends in Laboratory Automation. Currently, he is responsible for the area of lab automation in the Laboratory Weighing department.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Presenter:</strong> Kevin Kölliker (Lab Informatics Application Engineer | Agilent Technologies)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Kevin Kölliker studied Chemistry and Business informatics and worked as a lab technician and field service engineer before joining Agilent.<br/>Combined, he has more than 10 years of experience in analytical laboratories.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Kevin works closely together with the lab informatics product specialists to demonstrate the power of OpenLab, and to customize the solution to meet the needs of the customers.</p>
</blockquote>
