Back to the Top
The following message was posted to: PharmPK
I'd like to see if anyone has had experience with both Harvery and
Packard
oxidizers. Specifically I'd like to know if there is a difference in
reliability between the two systems and what's your experience with the
Harvey system.
Many thanks for your feedback.
Regards,
Yongqing Huang
Back to the Top
The following message was posted to: PharmPK
Dear Yongqing
At Covance we use both the Harvey and Packard Oxidisers. The Harvey
is used
predominatly in our Environmental Sciences group for combustion of
soil and
plant samples. The fact that the Harvey burns at a higher temperature
than
the Packard and that it is a completely closed system (unlike the
Packard)
makes it more suitable for these samples.
We use the Packard in our ADME group for combustion of animal tissues
(although a lot of work previously routinely performed by the oxidiser
is
now performed by solubilisation). We have occasionally combusted animal
tissues on the Harvey without problem (although the has only been
performed
when failure of the Packard has made it necessary). Conversely we have
also
occasionally combusted Environmental samples on the Packard. Results
here
are acceptable, however these samples seem to have a negative impact
on the
reliability of the instrument.
Both instruments can be considered to be inherently fairly unreliable,
requiring, as they do, frequent cleaning and catalyst changes. The
Packard
has the advantage for us that it is supported via servicing arrangements
already in place for Packard LSC instruments (Isotech). We rely more on
in-house expertise for maintenance of the Harvey although we are
currently
looking at alternatives (Zinsser or Lab-Impex).
If we can help any further, let me know
Regards
Anthony
Anthony Chadwick PhD
Scientific Operations Manager DMPK
Email: anthony.chadwick.-a-.covance.com
Covance Laboratories Ltd
Otley Road
Harrogate
HG3 1PY
United Kingdom
Back to the Top
The reliability of an instrument used for any critical application
should not be a matter of anecdotal exchanges. Each instrument has
manufacturer specifications and these should have been tested during
an IQ/OQ/PQ exercise. Your specific application should be tested as
part of the PQ, with your own performance criteria defining
acceptance. Beyond that, each run of the oxidizer should have its own
controls and should meet your requirements. In this way the
reliability of the instrument is ongoing. Any failures to meet your
specifications need to be addressed by investigation/maintenance.
Want to post a follow-up message on this topic?
If this link does not work with your browser send a follow-up message to PharmPK@boomer.org with "Questions on Oxidizers" as the subject | Support PharmPK by using the |
Copyright 1995-2011 David W. A. Bourne (david@boomer.org)