Konrad Grob - The Value of Education

Originally published on Restek website for Restek Advantage, 1999, Volume 2.

Reproduced with author’s authorization

by Dr. Konrad Grob, Kantonales Laboratory, Zurich

In my last Korner, I concluded that only an education and qualification system could prevent chromatography from further decline. Instead of devoting time and effort to force better chromatography through quality management schemes, validation, accreditation, and bureaucratic piles of paper, I suggested that institutions invest in improving the quality of their employees. In this way, both the employees and the employers share the responsibility for improvement. Employers should realize that knowing how to manage a crimper for closing autosampler vials (despite what some instrument vendors may claim) is not "all" it takes to make a gas chromatography (GC) laboratory successful. At the same time, if analysts want to be considered valuable assets, then they should be ready to take an examination that affirms their education and training. How much education is necessary?

I received an overwhelming response to my article. Almost all of which confirmed my conclusion. For the sake of argument, though, I would have liked to hand over the microphone to somebody who disagrees. However, without refuting my point, I will take a moment to gain a perspective on the questions of 1) How simple is GC really? and 2) How much education is necessary? When observed from a safe distance, the work of a GC analyst appears simple. A gas chromatographer performing routine analyses should be able to help troubleshoot when results are not appropriate. The analyst should, in addition, be able to "rapidly" analyze x in sample y, and know how to select the right column, the injection technique, and all the many parameters finally determining whether the analysis will be successful. If capable of developing methods, the analyst needs to overview the possibilities and the problems to be expected; the clever choosing of strategies, tools, and conditions that may save trouble over years and reduce the time needed per sample by a factor of more than two.

No doubt analysts who are able to answer common GC questions achieve more reliable results because they can find the pitfalls. While other people waste several days because an analysis does not turn out adequately, these analysts find tests that can rapidly localize the problem. They know beforehand that aqueous samples are more difficult to analyze and should be injected in small volumes.

In industrial countries, every working day costs around $1,000. Eliminating three days of expense per month by improved troubleshooting saves $3,000 for that month. You easily can save several days per month by using better methods or improving performance of given methods. A knowledgeable gas chromatographer can prevent visits by the service engineer and avoid other delays disturbing production or delivery. If half of the profit generated by more competent work goes to shareholders, the analyst's salary should increase by $3,000 at least.

Photo by Robert Doisneau