Chromatography Forum

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.

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 I used to report it on my state forms flagged as DNE.

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.

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

There is no way to fail the older 600 series methods.