Chromatography Forum

Surely depends upon the person, but for a very able and trained individual how many different techniques can one person perform and master?

I know my question has no correct answer, but I'd like to know your experiences in your labs from yourselves and your colleagues.

Simple Answer is "None"

You will gain knowledge in many techniques but however much you know or think you know there is always somenthing new to learn.

Once you think you have mastered somenthing, that something will invariably "turn around and bite you in the ass".

Once you think you have mastered something, that something will invariably "turn around and bite you in the ass".

That explains all the bite marks on mine!!

Being the "master" of a technique may depend on who is working in the lab.

"In the contry of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." ~ Erasmus

Do you mean how many methods your boss can chuck on you?

I know labs where for every single test/SOP there are 2 instruments and 2 analysts are allocated. One to run, one for backup. 2nd staff to back up when 1st person is on holidays/sickies.

haha, finally a person who understands

Yes pretty much this is my question. But all the other philosophical answers are pretty interesting and true too!!

"Techniques" and "methods" are different - but you knew that, right ?

Any "method" (aka an SOP in some labs) that is written in a way that a good technician (i.e. one who knows the techniques) cannot follow and get good results on first run through needs to be re-written. So, a good technician can master any number of methods.

Techniques are broader than methods, for example GC-MS is a techniques that can be used in a wide range of methods. It is in the nature of things that jacks of all trades are masters of none; specialization allows deeper penetration into any field, and then you question can be re-phrased as "How good do you have to be to be a master" - does a Masters degree cut it ?.

Peter

Yes of course I know that. But I'd like replies that involve people doing various different techniques, or various methods with the same technique etc.

I am mostly looking for real-world answers on this topic. These thoughts you present are very interesting and true of course. I am interested to know though what happens in real labs.

A good SOP can never be as good as you describe in my opinion. And then there is always troubleshooting which will be different in different techniques and even withing different methods, and can nevery be fully documented how to be done in an SOP. Do you agree?

"Techniques" and "methods" are different - but you knew that, right ?

Any "method" (aka an SOP in some labs) that is written in a way that a good technician (i.e. one who knows the techniques) cannot follow and get good results on first run through needs to be re-written. So, a good technician can master any number of methods.

Techniques are broader than methods, for example GC-MS is a techniques that can be used in a wide range of methods. It is in the nature of things that jacks of all trades are masters of none; specialization allows deeper penetration into any field, and then you question can be re-phrased as "How good do you have to be to be a master" - does a Masters degree cut it ?.

Peter

The key question is what defines 'mastery' of a subject.

I have developed methods on HPLC(UV and RI), GC, AA, and am currently doing my first development work on an LC/MS. Does this make me a master of any of those? The closest would be HPLC-UV and even then I don't think I could claim to be a master, however it is the one area I would feel comfortable applying to if a position required extensive knowledge.

That said, I once had a regulatory affairs person describe it to me this way. He was discussing what makes an expert in a court of law for expert testimony in a trial. Legally if a person can be shown to have greater knowledge on a subject than 99% of the population, then they are considered an expert. By that definition, I think I would qualify as an expert at HPLC, GC, AA, LC/MS, and a whole slew of other lab techniques.

A good SOP can never be as good as you describe in my opinion. . Do you agree?

No I don't agree, I have written methods that skilled technicians ran successfully ( and by that I mean generated results that passed QC and were issued to clients) the first time that they did it. I would go so far as to say that if a lab cannot hand out written methods to their lab techs and have them run "cold" the first time out, then they need to look closely at how the methods are written, and the skills of the technicians.

I have also seen methods that were so vague and underspecified that the technicians had to try a whole range of variants before they found one that worked. What constitutes a "method" also varies from lab to lab - one place that I worked was almalgamated with another lab. We were highly impressed that they were deveoping GC "methods" in half a day !, but what they called a "method" was to put a column in the GC, inject a standard, set a temperature programme and if the peak came out you had a method , we had been taking the old-fashioned view that extracting from the sample and running calibrations ought to be in there somewhere .

Peter

what they called a "method" was to put a column in the GC, inject a standard, set a temperature programme and if the peak came out you had a method

I can relate. The current job I am in, I was brought in to help develop new methods as well as optimize older existing methods. As I have looked at some of the older methods, I have found them to be shady at the best, some just flat out don't work. Upon asking some of the people who had been here a while, it appears method development was done by 'go find a peak'. There were no considerations given to linearity or to pH of the diluent/mobile phase.

On the positive note, this makes me look better because the methods I have touched have much less issue when given to the technicians.

Peter, I am still wincing from a steaming row with my boss about what constituted a method. He's a decent chap but we're at opposite ends of a spectrum on this. For him, method is column + gradient and a load of safety information, and anything else is over-complicated. I'm an extremist: for me a method is an account sufficiently detailed that another analyst familiar with the instrumentation can take a set of samples, decide whether they are appropriate for this method, carry out any sample prep that's needed, create appropriate standards and controls, and put them through the right instrument, analyse any raw data produced, and create a write-up or results-sheet or whatever that is sufficiently similar to what I would have done that its recipient can't actually differentiate between my work and someone else's. And on top of that, the method should have appendixed to it any validation that has been done, and sufficient evidence that it's fit for purpose. Otherwise how can I demonstrate that the results are meaningful? If the method also provides enough information to avoid the analyst dissolving bits of the lab or causing explosions, that's a nice bonus.

Seriously, to answer the original question: it really does depend on depth of knowledge. I think if you're dedicated to fields like LC-MS, GC, CE, HPLC, NMR etc., probably it's realistic to be fairly good at 2 or 3. If you spread yourself more thinly, you are likely to become less up-to-date or less practically experienced at each. If you concentrate on one, you can become more of an expert. Ironically, if you concentrate too much, there comes a point where you become less expert: you become the world expert on analysis of perfumes by GC, but become less expert generally at "GC" in that you become less able to tackle biofuel analysis...