Part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, we share first-hand access to chromatography and mass spectrometry product demonstrations, instructional videos, customer testimonials and expert insights. Subscribe to stay informed!
Previous use does NOT equal under the influence. A record of use is not a record of current intoxication. For example: In her life she was drunk once. Therefore, she is drunk?; An example of syllogistic failure 101. All people who are drunk drink alcohol, but not all people who drink alcohol are drunk. We have precision for alcohol. We have a legal chemical that has facilitated the ability for it to be researched. BAC limits are now able to be calibrated to the real-time interaction of the drug on the organism. We do not have the same precision in detecting impairment versus use for most other substances, especially at the level of law enforcement and employment testing scenarios. Isn´t it a scientific embarrassment if the brilliance of advances in precision of detection fail to match precision of the real-life validity of the result for a person being ´detected´? Precision in detection does not equal effect on an individual ´s judgement or effectiveness of policy...Under prohibition, Al Capone´s regime DID equal negative influence, and a century later, records of the period DO show equal negative influence. Scientists; do you really want the precision that you have achieved, and that is worthy of so much pride, to be able to be used so imprecisely to perpetuate unsophisticated policy implementation, victimise citizens, and bolster organised crime?
Wow do you not see how bent and messed up that crimp was!? It fathoms me how you would release this video, or release this product. Yeah the "error message" function definitely did not work 😂. Just wow..
Welcome to the 2020's! Business model is to mass market trash vs. quality. Unfortunately, integrity has been lost at sea. Just another unnecessary hurdle for scientists. I feel you.
Could I please know the various pesticide libraries in the MS, and how it works in terms of the information you want. Kindly relate it to chromatograms produced after analysis.
Obviously an ad just showing a best case usecase. But I have to admit, while being almost the same concerning using it (just don't get anything non volatile on it, phosphates are death), their completely different detection methods does show differences. Not as amazing as Thermo Scientific says, the response isn't universally comparable between all substances, but it is more universal than the ELSD, it is more sensitive and especially it has a higher linear range, which is most important for me. So screw all of that marketing blabla, the CAD simply is so much better than the ELSD through its bigger linear range. The ELSDs one can be massively expanded via changig the LED intensity, but only between different methods and sequences, not in a run and not comparable.
If you are having abnormally high pressure readings, there is likely an obstruction somewhere in the flow path. You will need to bypass different segments of the system until you see the pressure drop. The most likely cause of this high pressure are the inlet/outlet frits of your analytical column since the column creates the most backpressure in the system. If you bypass the columns and your pressure drops, then you know you need to replace the column frits or the entire column. Another likely location is in the valve, you can disassemble it and sonicate the stator face seal with 50:50 methanol:water to dislodge any particulate caught inside the injection valve.
For ions with a charge >1 the m/z would have to be multiplied to yield the mass, right? However, even if I adjust the charge in the panel, the expected mass and the resulting predictions of elemental compositions don't change. Am I missing something here?
Hello, I would like to ask why you set into MSMS Scan No column number 598, when few seconds before, there is that scan number is 353. Thanks for the answer.
