Dear Jose, Last year we acquired a TA instruments nanoITC after evaluating it and a Microcal model. For the price, the TA instrument was a considerable steal, was ~$50,000 cheaper the the Microcal Model. We didn't see or have since seen any issues with quality of the instrument. Software between the two differ does differ. TA instruments has a nice prediction model to assist with setting up the experiment, but is just in the throws of getting all the models put into practice for their analysis software (they provide all of their updates for free). Where as Microcal has a mature analysis software, but lacks the prediction component.
Scott On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Michael Hothorn <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Jose, > > I used both instruments for a number of years, first the VP ITC and later > on the ITC 200. I personally find the ITC 200 much more demanding to > operate. I think Microcal managed to improve the sensitivity of the ITC 200 > about 2-3 fold compared to the VP ITC, but they decided to decrease the > volumes by a factor of 6-7. This means that you have to work at higher > sample concentrations in the cell and in the syringe to get decent signals. > In addition the instrument is rather fragile (especially the glass syringe) > and more difficult to clean and maintain. I decided to go back to the VP > ITC. I cannot comment on other instruments. > > best wishes > Michael > > > > On 01/17/2012 05:02 PM, Jose Artur Brito wrote: > >> Dear All, >> sorry for this off-topic questions but I would like to have some >> feed-back from you on Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC) equipments. >> We have a very nice quotation for an iTC200 from GE Healthcare. We wanted >> this one because it uses ~200uL sample per measurement (really nice when >> your dealing with "precious" samples, ie., proteins with low expression >> yields). However, I was told that, although consuming much less sample, is >> not as good (sensitivity, mixing issues, bubbles, ...), as the VP-ITC (it >> uses ~1.4mL per measurement, seven times more than the iTC200). >> Does anyone has experience with these two equipments? Would you prefer >> one over the other (please state your reasons)? Would you suggest another >> equipment/brand for the ITC (like the NanoITC from TA Instruments)? >> Thanks in advance, >> Jose Artur Brito >> >> -- Scott D. Pegan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Chemistry & Biochemistry University of Denver Office: 303 871 2533 Fax: 303 871 2254
