Running an SRI in house makes great sense, for third party labs it’s a ridiculous suggestion.
Sure, you can hook up an auto-injector, but there is absolutely no way you’re gonna match the performance of an instrument designed from the ground up as a high throughput machine.
What does SRI offer in the way of mass detectors?
“It caught fire at the end of the tunnel” just doesn’t cut it for figuring out some of this stuff.
To run mass specs it’s an expensive instrument. So say you want to test the same sample 3 times as your policy…test on the gc…make sure it’s the same as the mass spec…save money save time. Anyone can use it, pretty much. Higher a trainer mass spec person…paying off their student loans how much they’ll charge.
The difference here is they are a quantitative testing lab. The SRI GC has it’s place in manufacturer labs for basic qualitative analysis for non-acidified species and residual solvent assessment, but it falls short in virtually every aspect except for cost compared to agilent, shimadzu, dionex, bruker, etc. For a legitimate testing lab, it’s worth the cost to get a LC/MS triple quad for passing PT’s and maintaining ISO accreditation. They are not your marketing demographic.
Did you spy on my dreams last night?
That would be amazing! Even if it did bump the cost up.
yes lol
It tests acid forms. Thca…what have you.
Message me