How many hours of assisted training would students need to learn the discipline of Instrumental Analysis Methods? How many hours of lectures and how many hours of laboratory? What is your situation in your University?
In truth we should all be open to learning new things about our techniques all the time. Even "experts" should be learning, developing new methods etc. So the really accurate answer to the question is that it takes all your career. However a reasonable degree of skill can be acquired over some years (5 - 10 for the more complex methods, maybe less for more straightforwards ones) and basic skills probably taught over a year or so of hands-on experience under supervision. During an undergraduate degree only the absolute basics and some theory can be taught for each technique, even when combined with some hours of practicals. Even an undergraduate dissertation based on a practical method will only provide the most basic of training. The real learning starts when you work with a technique every day in real situations and this is necessary to truly master a method.
It depends on the level of mastery want and the number of techniques to be taught. On average, about 20 hours of practice per technique can leave the student well trained. Obviously the same should do previous readings and with much dedication.
It depends on which level you are talking about.
For BS, ususally these are 3 credit lecture courses with some practical component.
However, for masters or above, student needs to really involve with the instrument in order to have good hands on experience
I agree with Francisco, but would add that to really master a technique such that you can design new methods, do simple maintainance and repairs on an instrument, diagnose faults and get the absolute best analysis for many different compounds, would take much longer. It needs several years of experience with lots of hands-on time to become an expert in any given technique.
Part of the answer depends on what is taught and how it is organized. Some things, such as limits of detection (LoD) and Limits of Quantitation (LoQ) are common to all instruments. Same with data acquisition and data storage. Knowledge of Nyquist frequency applies to every modern instrument, including imaging systems.
Some instruments are really "composite" instruments. For example, an HPLC is a chromatography column coupled with one, or more, instruments (UV-vis spectrometer and/or mass spectrometer as detectors). So time working with the theory/practice of spectroscopy, mass spec, and chromatography would be beneficial before discussing HPLC or UHPLC. If one knows chromatography, one know the basics behind glass columns, flash chromatography instruments, HPLC, UHPLC, and SFC.
A solid grounding in how the instruments work allows one to make new methods much more easily and understand the limits of any equipment much more quickly.
I will give you a 'real life' example. I had a Masters graduate apply for the position of Lab Analyst (HPLC). I drew 4 boxes on a piece of paper labelled HPLC. He didn't know the injector injected a sample into the mobile phase stream after the pump but before the column. Needless to say, he didn't get the job!
I will give you another example. As a QC Manager I performed a QA audit of a laboratory which wanted a contract for outside analysis. I took some of their literature and spied a person in their photograph. I asked her to turn on their AA even though she was standing beside the ON/OFF switch. She didn't know how! She explained she was only a high school student (pretty though) and used for this photo. Needless to say this lab didn't get the contract! Marketing BS!!
Thus, give your students more real time lab instruction!
Finally, I will give you another example. Due to increased sample volumes I decided to hire a summer Coop student. She was 'very' good and knew the health of an HPLC from it grunts and groans. I expected and hoped she would become an Analytical Chemist. However, she became a Medical Doctor! Ho Hum.
There are more than one method, and also depend on the level of the course
For first-year students, I think 4-6 hours a week is enough
I think that in the first 6 years,scientists get the initial skils in HPLC and instrumental analysis,....I my 48 years of experience in this field I said : ” In analytical Chemistry appeared new things for every day.....nobody knows anything “.....
In truth we should all be open to learning new things about our techniques all the time. Even "experts" should be learning, developing new methods etc. So the really accurate answer to the question is that it takes all your career. However a reasonable degree of skill can be acquired over some years (5 - 10 for the more complex methods, maybe less for more straightforwards ones) and basic skills probably taught over a year or so of hands-on experience under supervision. During an undergraduate degree only the absolute basics and some theory can be taught for each technique, even when combined with some hours of practicals. Even an undergraduate dissertation based on a practical method will only provide the most basic of training. The real learning starts when you work with a technique every day in real situations and this is necessary to truly master a method.
One full semester course in Instrumental Analysis at the academic undergraduate or graduate level should give you all the basics you need to begin doing instrumental analytical work, or I should say, to begin LEARNING the techniques professionally. On the job training by your employer to reach competency (to work without direct supervision) takes a about a year in a well-designed program of instruction. MASTERING the techniques involved (to become truly expert in one or more of them) will take many years of experience. Of course, it all depends on which and how many techniques you want or need to learn. Some techniques (like MS, NMR, XRD) are more complex than others (like GC, UV, IR) and so will take more time to master.
Dear Laura
I agree with Valerie Steele that training should never be seen as complete.
The question has many possible answers due to the open ended nature of it.
What would you expect the student to know and be able to do. Must they understand the fundamentals of the techniques as well as be able to operate the system.
Some techniques are very simple (TLC) while others are very complicated. On the other hand quantitating from TLC is complicated while UPLC would be relatively easy. Some techniques are relatively easy to train while others require far more input.
Other parts of the question are:
Must the student understand the complexities of sample collection, homogenisation, sample preparation techniques that differ from sample type to sample type. Must they understand and be able to apply techniques like standard addition, surrogate standards, internal standard selection and use. Must the student be able to develop or optimise the method, validate the method and perform system suitability.
Manufacturers have in the recent past complicated the field by making things easier and more black box like, so just apply sample and get answers without the need to know anything further.
If they need to merely operate an instrument it could take as little as an hour or two before they are "competent" depending on their experience and understanding of the technique and what comes from it.
More complicated methods and techniques need more time.
A simple test of the students technical variation relative to that of an experienced person could indicate competence or the requirement for further training.
We provide our students with basic training that includes an understanding of the fundamental aspects of each method during course work followed by hands on training and mentoring to most the analytical course attendees with specialized training for selected students that would apply the techniques during their research projects.
You can never know it all, so be open to learning from others whenever you are given the opportunity
I think the time for learning an instrumental analysis methods depends on several factors, for example, the type of the instruments, the seriousness of the students and intensiveness of the training. However, for the purpose of undergraduate course and projects, students could use one semester for both theoretical and practical work. This period should equipped the students with the skills and knowledge for them to use for their own research.
It depends on the student interest in the first place and skills he has. for example Instrumental chemical analysis needs very good knowledge of chemistry background, real hands-on experience. possibly three months of intensive training to the interested person is acceptable for basic skills. Expert level needs real experimenting in real situations and takes from 5 years to 10 years at the minimum to master the technique. there are skills nobody can teach you but gained from practice and real-world problem-based analysis. Development and training is continuous and non-stop even for experts.
I think the common academic training is aimed at the wrong target. Today's students become proficient at navigating menu's, rather than becoming proficient experimentalists. The result is that most get job offers as technicians rather than professionals who can think for themselves and solve problems. I would recommend more concentration on exercising basic critical analytical skills and problem solving and less on running fancy instruments. Our present undergrad education does not produce professionals. It produces technicians. For comparison, engineers with BS degrees are regarded as professionals. Their pay and regard on the job reflects this reality. I voice this viewpoint based on my experience in academia and industry, and published data on career paths.
I really agree with Scot - a very good point. Having tried to teach chromatography and mass spectrometry skills to students for some years I find the lack of ability to analyse any set of results critically and sensibly, and their lack of ability to apply basic logic and reasoning, can be quite disturbing. I once had a student write "This residue contains fat and wax, therefore it is orange juice". Not all students are like this, but many of them are still at that level in their final year or even at Master's level. This is despite trying to teach them that they need to think for themselves, consider possibilities and make decisions, and apply other things they know to the problem in hand.
Perhaps more basic critical thinking skills practice and less premature exposure to esoteric theory might be quite helpful. We have lost sight of the 'levels of practice' concept in our field. In earlier times, in the physical/manual trades, there were apprentices, journeymen, craftsmen and master craftsmen . These positions reflected the level of skills attained and the consequential levels of exposure to advanced topics which led to greater levels of skill. At present, in chemical education, this is done backwards. (1) Advanced topics are presented to freshmen before they have the intellectual development or tools to comprehend the material. (2)The practical skills necessary to advance from technician to journeyman- the most basic levels of skill- are never presented to students.
The bottom line is that even PhD level chemists mostly get jobs are highly trained technicians, (post docs and terminal industrial service jobs) rather than jobs for accomplished scientists. There is a crying need for well educated, problem solving chemists/scientists, and to date the challenge is unanswered by academia.
In chemistry, there isn't even a recognized level of professional accomplishment like the P.E (professional engineer certification). Today, high school grads certified in chemical safety are the authorities who tell me (PhD in chemistry, 3 yrs post doc experience, 45 years experience, publications, patents, etc.) how to handle chemicals, even though they cant pronounce the names correctly, understand the chemistry of the materials, etc.
For the society, it is a very poor use of the human resource, and this is amplified by the inefficeient use of physical resources.
There is not a discipline of "instrumental analysis". An instrument is a tool; no different in many respects than a hammer. How long does it take to learn to PROPERLY use a hammer? A very long time, truthfully, with a lot of learning about other things along the way. Instrumental analysis is basic chemistry; you have to learn the analytical technique first before you can properly use the instrument. I can teach a monkey to push a button or navigate a menu; I need no chemistry for that. Scott is absolutely right; we do not teach the proper things. First, teach the technique (spectroscopy, chromatography, etc). Then, teach how the instruments actually work (take them apart). Now, put it all together. This takes a very long time, which is exactly what Valerie was pointing out. I've been actively employed in a laboratory since 1975 and I still learn new tricks very day (or, given old brains, probably re-learn old tricks). Our knowledge of chromatography over the past 40 years has radically changed, as have the tools. Our ability to use spectroscopy in a practical manner has changed radically - in 1975 no one even had access to a plasma. These changes require that you continue to learn and evolve, or end up in a position of just pushing a button.
In an effort to bring some sanity into the analytical chemistry area, and open many doors otherwise closed to us, we developed in our lab a flexible "DIY Instrument Maker" based in Excel(R). (Many applications on Youtube). The Excel workbooks talk to the electronics directly; we built workbooks for our GC's, HPLC, Mechanical testers. Frees people from the limitations and expense of boxed applications. Easy to modify. We have been surprise to learn how limited the skillset and perspectives of many analytical 'professionals' have become. Many can't even follow a simple logic statement or do anything outside a user-friendly menu. Most can't even comprehend the notion that measurements can be made very well without a commercial instrument, and an instrument is not an "answer box". That is the result of too much training and not enough education.
Academia needs to educate professionals so that industrial clients and get professional grade employees. Critical thinking skills and attention to practicalities need to be encouraged and esoteric theory stressed less. At present I give most chemistry programs a failing grade. Their product is useless, and grad school does not presently improve the situation.
Besides the laboratory hours, the best is to perform a master's thesis with extensive work on the instrument - this is the best way.
regards,
GB
Perhaps the first thing to bring to students are the fundamentals of measurement:
1. Reference point (a.k.a. 'zero' or 'baseline')
2. Definition and determination of 'noise' (a.k.a. imprecision)
3. Determination of a 'Signal' (i.e. Not noise, and related to something)
4. Calibration (Quantitative Correlation of Signal and amount of sample)
It is worthwhile to have students explore these simple ideas, and put them in the contexts of logic and math using simple experiments before using an chemically oriented analytical instrument.
One experiment is weighing a collection of coins of mixed value, determining the precision of the measurement of coins of the same value, exploring the correlation of the number of coins of the same type vs the weight. and finally making a histogram of the weights of the collection of coins.
This simple experiment opens the minds of many student to what measurement is all about and how mathematics is used describe the events.
A 3 credit hour course can be a very good start to teach the principles, applications and some hands on experience on different instruments. It can be a 50 hours course comprising half in class and half practical training.
Certainly. But i second Valerie. With constantly changing industry, no specific amount of time is sufficient to teach everything. Only the basic knowledge and some application can be taught and then depending on the interest and passion, an individual grow in the field. Also, we can only master so much and not everything. An open mind to continously learn helps a long way.
I think it varies from student to student
Best Regards Laura Bulgariu
It depends on what type of instruments are used to learn the operation by a student students have posses range of of abilities starting from slow understanding of the operattional mechanism to fast learning ,a few need trial and error practice for perfection .In any of the universitie where there such learning there is fixed time,with in that time one has complete the entire proceess,in this regard one can easily recognize variations in completed learning.To over come such variations one should think how things could be changed on individual basis with in the time frame.
At the undergraduate level, I think it is more important to teach fundamentals of measurement and the physical bases upon which some of the more common instruments are based. Getting a student super proficient at running one kind of instrument or software makes them a good technician, perhaps, but not a scientist. A couple of decades ago at Ursinus College we used a programmable electronic interface system and a handful of sensors which students used to assemble "Instruments (titrator, electrochemistry experiments, etc.). This gave them a real appreciation for what an instrument is (just some electronics,sensors and specialty physical pieces put together to do a particular measurement) and what it is not (an answer machine). In my labs at Phoenix we use an Excel(R) based system with electronics (DAQ2GO) with which we make our own instruments and sometimes revive others.
I read with interest the thoughts/views of the experts on this subject.
Please; allow me to add how I would design a course. Very important starter is the audience. Who they are? Which year in their college education they are in? What is their major/which school are they in, science, medical, or engineering? Each school has its own interest of what instruments/techniques should its students learn in instrumental analysis course. How deep the instructor should get into each of the course's topics differs from a school to another. The collective answers to these questions should dictate the strategy by which the instructor begins his/her designing the course's learning material/methods.
- Badges
- Science topic