Chromatography Forum

Hello all -

Haven't posted in a while, thought I'd run this question on the board out of curiousity.

I'm assuming a majority of people on here have taken chemistry college courses. My question is: How much instrumentation did you learn in school?

Honestly, after about 15 years of being in the chemistry field (7 years as a bench chemist, 8 years with GCs), I don't think that there was enough instumentation (or even lab procedure) taught in my classes.

I just feel that I learned more on the job than I learned in class.

What's your opinion?

John

You can make a case that the real purpose of "education" (as opposed to "training") is teaching you how to learn. The techniques and habits you acquire are more valuable than the facts.

I learned some instrumentation in school. And I learned on some fairly nice stuff. We hade a nice GC with 1/4" packed columns. (And I heard about some folks trying to hook up a mass spectrometer through a jet separator... And we all said "Yeah, like we will ever have a practical interface between a GC and a mass spec!") And there was infrared with a double beam instrument and a mechanically linked rotating drum that made for accurate wave numbers. I even got to operate the new toy - a 60 mHz NMR (There was talk about a 100 mHz instrument and a theoretical limit up around 180 mHz.)

And for computing power. We got to punch data onto punchcards and run the program (in FORTRAN IV) at the computer center - which had the computer in this nice, large air conditioned room because of the heat it generated. Cards in the hopper - printout on greenbar paper - and if it did not work, you took the paper and figured out what was missing in the middle.

From when I was in school (1970's) to to day all of the equipment I had my hands on has become obsolete. The underlying theory remains the same. Chromatography is all about partitioning - to this day. Capillary has changed chromatography dramatically - and made the interface with a mass spec practial. IR - the bands are made by the same stretches, wiggles, and wags in the molecule -- and at the same wave number. The FTIR was never heard of - the laser did not exist and the computations were far beyond what we could do. NMR has gone to multiple dimension experiments with pulse sequences and all kinds of wonderful things.

Basics, like avoiding finger prints on glassware as you weigh in it and cleaning a balance remain the same. Also the use of t-tests to determine differences - or statistics to determine how many measurements you need to determine a difference of a particular size still works.

I hope that over the past 40 years, I have learned a lot on the job. The world has changed a lot. As far as learning stuff in school: some of the techniques I've taught, there was no class until I gave it. Personally, I'd rather have it that way.

This is an interesting question.

First you need to decide the coordinates, as I understand the American education system and in the Russian concept of school is different.
In russian system of education graduation :
elementary school (reading, writing, language) secondary school (higher mathematics, natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology as the general ones), literature, history, geography, 1 or 2 foreign languages​​).After the 8 th grade (14-15 years) is divided into vocational - technical education (college) (1-3 years) or complete secondary education (the same school, but more in-depth study of mathematics and science as a theory)
And a separate group is higher education, technical school (an institution) or a university.
I understand you have a longer learning and school in this case is more in line with our technical college or technical scool.

A little about yourself
Graduated from high school, a medical (technical) college N14 (as paramedic) , First Moscow Medical Institute name of I M Sechenov ( also Moscow medical academy, Moscow medial university in the Yeltsin era was had a passion to rename ) as a provisor (pharmacist, with specializations clinical pharmacology and pharmaceutical chemistry +pharmacognosy )

On the issue.
In elementary / secondary school and medical college course instruments for chemistry was not - litmus, test tubes. To acquaint the student with the different alkali than acid - that is enough.
However I was have something to fill the gap - because we had a villa outside the city=> I was could "to organize a secret explosion chemistry lab " . Explosives found at bilding (Calcium carbide), farms (ammonium nitrate), and battlefields of World War II (ammunition , unexploded ordnance).As there were no casualties, still do not understand.

At the Institute of things were just as bad.
It's been 90 years and financing was not. Students to the instruments (equipment) was not permitted (though I was the exception - as a "perpetual duty" - a group of 12 people I was the first and only boy).
Therefore I am well acquainted with the optical microscope and microbiological techniques, little work on the UV-spectrophotometer (SF-4, the device design has the forties with a galvanometer as an indicator, type of the first Beckman), once with gas chromatography (LKhM-8 - a technique 70 - x, with a recorder on paper).

However, the syntheses gave us good (I was synthesis of benzene to sulfanilamide and of citric acid to tropane).
Theory, including organic chemistry was also at altitude - Decan was a professor Arzamastsev and Teacher (guru ) Kost (from Moscow State University).
They also brought the students to decipher the original NMR, mass and IR spectra (as paper).
Therefore, further development of analytical equipment for me, no problem is => member button and forward.

Looking back on 20 years ago, I note.
Study of "buttons" was insufficient and useless. But the basic principles of chemistry (the structure of matter and its connection with the physical and chemical properties, mathematics, statistical experiment) are outdated. I totally agree with respected Don.
Regarding the instruments. If you want to show the button and not the principles - is important visibility. TLC and chromatography of dyes on a glass column to give the understanding more than the most advanced GC / HPLC. Explanation of any spectrum will give much more than a spectrometer show - "Look kids, we do have such a machine".
Correctly that the equipment was included in the training task in a complex - now synthesized, tomorrow separated, the next day removed the spectrum, and know what happened.
That's it. Google translation, but the remark about the respected Tom, I remember, and then edit it.

Hi

Well chemwipe in my opinion it is not the amount of instrumentation but rather the mix/balance of pratise and theory that counts. As already stated fundementals in many areas is still very true so a University with a bunch of high end/latest stuff do not necessary produce the best analytical chemists. And thats "only" the analytical part. Then we have the general area you work in, in some cases organic chemistry knowledege helps a bunch, in others inorganics is helpfull (inorganic analytical chemistry is somewhat lacking imho).
One not uncommenly overlooked area is the fundementals of the analytical chain, simplified from sampling-storage-samplepreparation-analytical-use of standards-choice of technique-evaluation.

Another thing as mentioned i other recent threads are basic analytical things such as use of analytical balances, calibration of pipietts (eppendorf etc).

So in conclusion I would say the mix of instrumentation with theory is more crucial than the avalible high end instrumentation and a grasp of the analytical chain is very helpful. High end stuff is best understood when you grasp the underlaying theory/basics.
Personnaly I consider myself a bit lucky as I in the past wavered between medicine and chemistry and as of such touched areas covering biomedicals, clinical chemistry, enviromentcal/occupitional chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry and a fare share of raw materials/inorganic analysis.

to sum it up, it would like to stick my neck out and state thats it is impossible to produce a analytical chemist in 3-4 years at the university that covers all areas, the uni has its profile and hopefully you get a good fundation to start from. after that is partially your choice to keep to a narrow area or broaden yourself.

hope this made some sence, I consider my theorectically argugumenting in english somewhat lacking on occasion.

Looking back at my education (age 18 round about 1985, in the UK) the thing that alarms me most is that analytical techniques weren't taught pre-university at all (except of course paper chromatography of felt-tip pens), and even at univeristy, they were barely taught. No one made the connection between synthesis and the need to establish what you had made, or the connection between a reaction mechanism and the way in which someone found out what the mechanism was. Of course it was in the text-books, but the lectures and practicals were so condensed that there wasn't time to read very much. We used IR and melting-points as undergraduates, but NMR was strictly a paper-exercise, and chemists considered MS rather irrelevant (it wasn't even mentioned). Biologists didn't really stray beyond enzyme kinetics. Tragic.

Things have changed. I now get copious school visits from students bearing stuff they've made, and accompanied by teachers keen to prove they've made the right thing. It's a good step. I blame CSI for much of it.

At the moment I'm not totally convinced analytical chemistry should be taught in isolation. I haven't been impressed by the level of knowledge of the few I've met who've trained as pure analytical chemists. But perhaps I've been unlucky.

A chemistry department without analytical chemistry? Can not imagine it. A degree without analytical chemisty courses?

Whithout high-price analitical equpment (for students/scoolar). The budget savings and inflation pounds from Thatcher - at us it Russia under Yeltsin. No money.

HW Mueller, the chemistry department had analytical equipment, but introduced all its students via a mixed sciences course in which one specialised increasingly year by year. The first year chemistry course would have been about 33% of total time, and whoever planned the courses didn't put undue weight on analytical work. It was the sort of university that wouldn't have expected its students to go into general analytical work anyway. It expected to train future Nobel laureates, and didn't much care about the less academically able (to be honest, I should have taken the hint; I'd have been a better electrician or plumber).

I expect that those who specialised further in chemistry would sooner or later have had an option on analytical chemistry. Unfortunately those who slid off into biology after the first year (probably the majority) never had any introduction to analytical techniques or why they are important. There were too many of us to be shown the "real" equipment used by the research side of things.

with such questions I always remember my math class in school or universtiy

for the year we started to learn SIN, COS and TANG we got a calculator to do it for us. a casio
but to get the concept we had to crack the numbers by pencil. after we got it, it was sure nice to save time and effort with the casio
same for intergers and derivatisations math at university. we were allowed to use the short and obvious results only after we had gone by 6 month of cracking the simple ones by ourselves.
it sure help to today to know there are books where you can find a fast solution to a certain problem as well now that I know the concept and can use it

I see these days in my country several big pharma companies have supplied instruments to a few colleges and opened up courses in analytical chemistry.
I wonder how much academic concepts are taught there versus getting the students ready to work for those companies

things always evolve to a more instrumental phase, those that win it are those that are capable to still show how science works through them.
just to think that a 100 year ago at schools they used ink and "plumes" to write, we have the ball pen, the ball pen

As flood
You know, I still found the time when the school "strongly encouraged" to use fountain pens in the first grade. To develop a calligraphic signature.

Though I'm not develop calligraphic signature- I wrote always fall quickly, but "curve". This was an advantage - the teacher could not understand, write "a" , "o" or "e" , a majority teachers this question was interpreted in my favor.

But in medical institute , my handwriting has deteriorated completely, and now my scribblings do not understand to the (for) wife ...

I've followed this topic. You all are not gray but white hair, (as me).
University from 1969 to 1974. Electronic calculators? Sliding rule!, Fortran IV, pH paper, mechanical balances, and in my last year there, I could touch a GC because it was unserviciable.
Perhaps I took of these years a "chemical skin" that helped me to learn at my first job.
Mine is an addiction to learn about Chromatography but as someone told before honestly perhaps I could be a better plumber or car mechanics..

I am a more recent graduate from college than most (all?) who have posted, but my instrumental exposure was almost completely lacking. I read about HPLC (briefly, a chapter in an analytical chemistry text, nothing more); same for GC. We did an IR experiment in my organic chemistry class in junior college, but after that the closest I got to anything analytical was a balance.

I feel like more of a tech than a trained chemist - more like lmh than HW Mueller, I suppose. If I could go back, I'd strive for more knowledge like HW Mueller, and I would love to expand on the knowledge I've gained in the "thrown in the deep end" school of life.

However, as Tom said, higher education teaches you how to learn - you teach yourself the rest, or hopefully you have people around you to guide you in your professional development.

The reason for thinking that a school should be well equipped and offer a broad background is that they should not only teach how to learn, but teach how to be creative. We can not just preserve what our elders created/invented.
Now, I did physical organic chemistry in graduate school, biological chemistry seemed suspect so I avoided it. Turns out that most of my professional life was connected with medicine. Now the avoidance of bio hurt. My knowledge had some severe holes, just in the sort of background which a good teacher would have probably provided.
In other words, it is invaluable to get personal "coaching" also in analytical chemistry to start one on a good track.

I am a more recent graduate from college than most (all?) who have posted, but my instrumental exposure was almost completely lacking. I read about HPLC (briefly, a chapter in an analytical chemistry text, nothing more); same for GC. We did an IR experiment in my organic chemistry class in junior college, but after that the closest I got to anything analytical was a balance.

This.

Even if we had a lab assignment that required running an instrument (and I'm thinking really hard about what instrument it even was), I only remember getting a printout of the data and graphing it in Excel. I kind of remember either my professor or his grad student actually starting and running the instrument.

I ran the analytical balance! Haha.

John