Lab tech or Chemist?

Off-topic conversations and chit-chat.

23 posts Page 2 of 2
I've definately come across more than a few companies who want to hire a chemist and pay technician wages.

If you have an AAS degree at the highest and do only lab work that is routine and out of a rigid protocol with little troubleshooting then you are a technician. If you have a BS or greater degree and perform complex analyses, develop new methods, troubleshoot equipment, then you are a chemist and calling them a tech is like calling a CPA a bookkeeper.

I was definately annoyed by the large number of companies requiring chemist qualifications and offering technician wages ($15 an hour no benefits) and keeping everyone as a contractor through a temp agency. It nearly ended up driving me out of the field.
Just to add I can tolerate routine work. I spend a good chunk of my time doing mundane stuff like salt titration with AgNO3, moisture content by heating a sample in a vac oven, flash point, pH, % acidity on the other end of the spectra I love expirimenting with new methods especially since I am in a low budget lab with no HPLC. I joke that my HPLC is an HP-5890-FID with a bottle of BSTFA. Yesteday I was futzing arround with doing inosine monophosphate and guanosine monophosphate on the GC. I spend a ton of time working on 3-mcpd, I am working on capsaicinoids/SHU etc.
I've been fortunate.

I have a BS Chemistry and I work in a lab that's pretty well-equipped. I've half-dozen publications, done a ton of method development work including quite a few cGMP method validations and GLP method validations, and seem to have a knack to develop test methods simple enough for QC use/sample preparations.

The last decade has been challenging, as now we have to have SOPs for stuff like our glassware dishwasher, how we know that a standard is a standard, etc. Dealing with most stuff from the USP is a nightmare, like can one use 0.5N titrant instead of 1N? Sure, if one can show equivalency; so what determines equivalency? USP doesn't say, just says needs to be equivalent, so very frustrating.

So I'd say this is the toughest part. I read on this site how people have trouble with USP assay procedures, yet apparently most just use them as determining equivalency or validating a modification brings up a whole new set of issues. Sad. I "like" stuff like the benzethonium chloride monorgraph where the assay takes 10 minutes, but standardizing the titrant (made from 99.5+% pure stuff) takes practically all day to standardize, and a gravimetric procedure in singleton yet, where the precipitate sticks to glass. Have fun with that one!
My favorite was the USP directions for meperidine HCl standard prep: Dry in a vacuum oven for 4 hours at such and such a temp and vac... Problem is that if you had a new/good enough vacuum pump & oven to actually hit the prescribed conditions, your (very expensive) USP standard would sublime! If nothing else, this may have trained a few people to keep their oven walls and roof very clean.
Thanks,
DR
Image
Consumer Products Guy wrote:
I've been fortunate.

I have a BS Chemistry and I work in a lab that's pretty well-equipped. I've half-dozen publications, done a ton of method development work including quite a few cGMP method validations and GLP method validations, and seem to have a knack to develop test methods simple enough for QC use/sample preparations.

The last decade has been challenging, as now we have to have SOPs for stuff like our glassware dishwasher, how we know that a standard is a standard, etc. Dealing with most stuff from the USP is a nightmare, like can one use 0.5N titrant instead of 1N? Sure, if one can show equivalency; so what determines equivalency? USP doesn't say, just says needs to be equivalent, so very frustrating.

So I'd say this is the toughest part. I read on this site how people have trouble with USP assay procedures, yet apparently most just use them as determining equivalency or validating a modification brings up a whole new set of issues. Sad. I "like" stuff like the benzethonium chloride monorgraph where the assay takes 10 minutes, but standardizing the titrant (made from 99.5+% pure stuff) takes practically all day to standardize, and a gravimetric procedure in singleton yet, where the precipitate sticks to glass. Have fun with that one!


I have dabbled a little in the USP work, mostly HPLC methods, and it is frustrating that everything is based on such old ways of doing things. One method wanted something like 3 minutes separation between two analytes or else the method failed, which completely precludes using UPLC or even narrow bore columns.

I think though that EPA/NELAC work is even worse. Even if a method has what is clearly a typo, you have to argue for weeks with an auditor that you are actually doing it correctly. We once had a state regulation that called for the analysis of 1,2-Dibromomethane. It took forever to explain to the auditor why the compound was not in my standard :shock: I used to report it on my state forms flagged as DNE.
The past is there to guide us into the future, not to dwell in.
My boss showed me the USP method for 3-monochloropropane diol. I laughed at it. They use a large diameter GC column .5 or something and don't derivitize it. I can't imagine getting anything useful out of that method. without derivitization the analyte behaves very badly on the GC, the sensitivity is crap, and the large bore column exasperates it and I believe no int standard. It was one of the worst analytical methods I ever saw.
MSCHemist wrote:
My boss showed me the USP method for 3-monochloropropane diol. I laughed at it. They use a large diameter GC column .5 or something and don't derivitize it. I can't imagine getting anything useful out of that method. without derivitization the analyte behaves very badly on the GC, the sensitivity is crap, and the large bore column exasperates it and I believe no int standard. It was one of the worst analytical methods I ever saw.


Look at the pass/fail criteria for a Continuing Calibration Verification in EPA Method 624 ;)
The past is there to guide us into the future, not to dwell in.
There is no way to fail the older 600 series methods. :D
23 posts Page 2 of 2

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1117 on Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Latest Blog Posts from Separation Science

Separation Science offers free learning from the experts covering methods, applications, webinars, eSeminars, videos, tutorials for users of liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, sample preparation and related analytical techniques.

Subscribe to our eNewsletter with daily, weekly or monthly updates: Food & Beverage, Environmental, (Bio)Pharmaceutical, Bioclinical, Liquid Chromatography, Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry.

Liquid Chromatography

Gas Chromatography

Mass Spectrometry