Konrad Grob - Do We Need a Chromatography School?
>> January 24, 2010
Originally published on Restek website for Restek Advantage, 1998, Volume 3.
Reproduced with author’s authorization
by Dr. Konrad Grob, Kantonales Laboratory, Zurich
Sometimes things need to be said in a pointed way. The following is one of those things. If even less than 50% is applicable, then it is enough to sound an alarm.
The Slow Sinking of Chromatography
I grew up in the good old times when the world believed in chromatographers. We were proud of what we did, could work in our own way, but were also responsible for our results -- we were our own maestros, playing our chromatographs with the best of melodies. But, then misery befell us. It was suspected our results were faked. Bureaucratic methods like Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) were invented and, ever since, many of us must document every move we make. We wanted to work in the lab, not do office jobs on an uncomfortable lab chair, didn't we?
Confidence in our results was lost almost completely. This has its origin in embarrassingly poor results delivered by some labs, but also in the difficulty of the public to understand that our results may have a substantial margin. They may think that if an instrument is expensive, the results must be absolutely accurate. At court, results are no longer questioned on their accuracy, but on the paperwork behind them: when was the balance checked last, and is there a certificate proving that the hexane was not water. Shouldn't we feel offended by such general distrust? As a consequence, much of our work has become regulated in minute detail, with many ideas having a penetrating odor of stacks of paperwork and meeting rooms. Many methods grew to be more than 10 pages, half of which are taken up with titles and decimal numbering. They specify standard compounds in every detail, as well as simple manipulations like how to rinse a round flask. However, they all too often do not even mention the tasks that cause real problems, such as the details on how to perform injection techniques. Have we lost all of our competence or are some totally unskilled lab workers dictating our lab?
Lab Work Degrades
In many labs, work has become dull. It has degraded to the execution of recipes -- as mundane as making hamburgers, only having more frustrations and a lower success rate. Your results are accepted only if you have a validated method and a certified standard. Many methods could be greatly improved, saving large amounts of time and money, but changes presuppose such a large amount of rework that most people just keep quiet. It is performing analyses in chains. Many of the best chromatographers are no longer finding enjoyment in such work.
Commonly, lab supervisors are no longer in the lab. They are chemists who learned hardly more about chromatography than interpreting a van Deemter curve. For them, going into the lab might mean learning the basics from the supervised -- it is easier to design Excel spreadsheets and manage quality from a safe distance. Analytical refugees because of a lack of chromatography education?
It is sad to see such an exciting field declining. GC would not be the first chromatographic technique to degrade. Thin layer chromatography (TLC) is an excellent method for many purposes, much faster and cheaper than some other methods. However, where could I learn the art of TLC today?
Quality Management, a Makeshift Solution
Much of quality management (QM) resembles a desperate support structure used to stop the decay of analytical chemistry; a sophisticated system to protect against a lack of competence. However, in reality, QM might even accelerate the decay as it chases away the good analysts by way of boredom and frustration. Many newcomers have no proper education and will hardly develop a passion for the work they encounter, and only look at peaks when asked to do so in bold letters. Many laboratories have lost their competence to create or modify methods. In the end, the pessimists are right: merely the most rigid and painstaking descriptions prevent people from doing the incredible things that many technical support services hear about every day. Analytical chemistry risks collapse, despite -- or maybe because of -- the rapidly growing QM systems.
A Need for Better Education
Is there anything we can do to stop this decline? The key problem concerns competence of the analysts. Chromatography is demanding and requires professionally trained people. Analysts must be masters of their field, motivated to do their work well and react promptly if something peculiar is observed. They should feel responsible for their results, but also be recognized for performing a difficult job. Supervisors must be knowledgeable leaders in chromatography, guide with ideas and suggestions, understand problems, as well as pick up and support the good ideas of their people. Emphasis must be moved from paper-leaden QM systems towards ensuring the competence of the analysts.
Many of the modern technologies suffer from lacking education. In new fields, the originators are the natural teachers, informally passing on their knowledge. When they leave, classical education should take over. However, universities are unable to offer this service for all the emerging fields and there is not enough room for chromatography in the teaching of general chemistry. Hence, new models of education are needed. We might also need an internationally recognized qualification system, so that well-trained chromatographers are recognzied as specialists in their field. The problem is serious and a great challenge for all who are willing to keep alive a field in which more than 500,000 persons are working.
