APRIL, 1971 THE ANALYST Editorial Vol. 96, No. I141 The Impact of Instrumentation on the Analytical Laboratory THAT we live in a time of change is nowhere more evident than in the analytical laboratory. While this has probably been true for most of the 97 years our Society has been in existence, the development of highly specialist instrumentation to supplement, extend or replace “wet” analytical methods of analysis has given the past 30 years a special character. Broadly speaking, the 1940s and the 1950s saw the steady development of hardware incorporating the scientific discoveries of the previous 100 years and the 1960s saw the consolidation of such equipment in our analytical laboratories as well as the advent of high-cost items resulting from the development of better devices to meet the demands for better diagnostic procedures and for faster routine methods.Hence we now have, for example, infrared spectrophotometry, mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry in conjunction, if necessary, with gas or thin-layer chromatography as an extremely powerful set of procedures in the organic field, while in the inorganic area we have been able to add the electron-probe analyser to an already impressive set of diagnostic and measurement techniques. Great benefits have accrued to the analyst, and thence to the world at large, as a result of these developments. Not only can he give a faster service to his customers, but often a better service in the sense that the information he supplies is better in quality and, not infrequently, he can supply information when hitherto such information would have been impossible to obtain.For example, the studies of many pollution problems have needed the development of suitable analytical methods before they could become meaningful. These benefits from developments in instrumentation have not been gained cheaply. They are affecting the cost of running our laboratories, the shape of the laboratories them- selves, and the staff we need to employ. So although the future shows every promise of further rich gains in new or improved analytical techniques, it is perhaps pertinent to consider the effects of these repercussions and any steps we may need to take to deal with them. The comments that follow have been generated from a necessarily limited environment and are offered more as a basis for discussion rather than any attempt to be dogmatic.The cost of analytical equipment probably began to be most sharply felt in the late 1950s with the coming of gas chromatographs at about El000 each. To use gas chromato- graphy was to realise its potential and one soon needed several instruments; it was not un- common, however, to find laboratories not able to afford such equipment. Infrared and ultraviolet spectrophotometers could be regarded a little differently because, usually, one of each would be enough and they would last for many years; new models of gas chromatographs appeared with the frequency of new cars. Other instruments began to appear with prices in the thousands rather than hundreds of pounds ; atomic-absorption spectrometers, polaro- graphs, the do-it-yourself infrared spectrophotometers and X-ray fluorescence spectrometers and, as we moved through the 1960s, E30 000 was becoming commonplace for mass spectro- meters, nuclear magnetic resonance equipment and electron-probe analysers.Now, looking ahead, we can visualise a proliferation of improved instruments of all kinds, many of which are becoming virtually automatic in operation (and consequently perhaps a little less versatile !) . Inevitably, most laboratories are producing more data and, inevitably, many are turning to computers for help with the difficulties thus created. It is also inevitable, as we seek to acquire better instrumentation for our laboratories, that management will require some assurance of getting a good return on the capital involved; 257258 EDITORIAL [Analyst, Vol.96 fortunately, if the equipment expenditure has been well conceived, there is little difficulty here. Sooner or later, however, the successful use of high-cost equipment is likely to stimulate more work than can be conveniently carried out in the normal working day, and requests for extra equipment are likely to be met with the observation that at 35 to 40 hours per week the existing equipment is hardly overworked. If the laboratory is concerned mainly with process control, a tradition of shift working probably exists already, so that not too much difficulty is experienced in operating the expensive equipment on a shift basis. However, if it is located in a research laboratory, then the possibility of shift working may not be one that commends itself to the staff for whom the normal working day is traditional.It should, of course, be added that not all equipment is amenable to continuous shift working, although up to 12 to 16 hours per day can probably be achieved with most. There is another vital and inevitably expensive factor to be considered: analytical equipment no longer lasts for ever. The wise laboratory manager must now reckon the life of most of his laboratory instruments as something like 5 years, regarding anything in excess of that as a bonus; he will also keep in mind that an elderly instrument that still produces results may perhaps be more expensive to operate and possibly provides less information than its more modern counterpart.As a result, his annual forecast of capital expenditure must now contain a realistic sum for replacing such equipment as this becomes necessary. We are, of course, always reluctant to throw away instruments, but this is clearly something we shall have to get used to. However, with the increasing cost of equipment, it may even- tually prove worthwhile to hire equipment rather than buy it outright; this is a relatively new possibility for analytical chemists, and it remains to be seen how far it becomes feasible. Yet another factor affecting our laboratory costs is maintenance. With the increasing complexity of our tools, we can no longer allow the local do-it-yourself enthusiast to handle any but the simplest of difficulties, and even in the larger laboratories the resident instrument engineer cannot be expected to cope with the many varieties of equipment now used. Hence, we are having to rely more and more on the expensive service engineer from the instrument manufacturer to keep much of our equipment in operation; of course, the quality of the service thus obtained will play a significant part in our original choice of such equipment.Many of our laboratories are still much the same shape as they were 20 years ago, except that the benches are now covered with gas chromatographs, atomic-absorption spectrometers, and so on. However, we usually site the larger items of equipment in empty rooms and design the laboratory facilities around them, but we are rarely fortunate enough to be able to plan for any future extension at the same time-and so the seeds of future frustration are sown.When the laboratories are located in the factory, we are finding that a significant part of our process control has been moved out of the laboratory on to the plant, either to be carried out by on-line equipment working continuously or by process operators with semi-automatic devices. Indeed, whenever possible, today’s plant designers will be seeking not only to have as much testing as possible on-line, but to have information from such equipment fed back to the control room to play its part in continuous plant control; the days of producing results for process control testing that are studied at leisure are surely numbered. Finally, the increase in instrumentation has had its effect on the inhabitants of our laboratories.In our quest for accuracy and speed at lowest cost, life can be interesting and often exciting for the research analyst. However, it is becoming more likely that with any particular problem he will now only need to prove the usefulness of a particular technique, leaving the design and construction of the hardware to the instrument manufacturer, who now undertakes much of the development work on the more commonly used techniques. When automatic equipment operates on-line on the plant, responsibility for its continuous operation, its maintenance and the provision of back-up services can involve the analyst in local politics and public-relations exercises for which his analytical training may not have equipped him, and he may need to tread warily.When the equipment sits in the laboratory, especially when routine process control is the main objective, life could become dreadfully dull for the technicians operating it unless some imagination is brought to bear on the arrangement of work schedules. As our laboratories become more highly rnechanised, so the staff employed make less and less use of wet-chemical methods and, unless we are very careful, the point might be reached when there is nobody about who can carry out such methods; as the older analysts retire, this is something that needs to be watched carefully. The increase in instru-April, 19711 EDITORIAL 259 mentation is undoubtedly causing changes in the activities of those working in our labora- tories and bringing, in turn, changes in the way they need to be trained o r re-trained, a subject that is being actively pursued by our new Education and Training Group. Analytical work has always been interesting but, such has been the impact of modern instrumentation, we are now able to do so much more than was possible in the past. There- fore the future looks bright for the analytical scientist, but it could be fraught with difficulty if he does not learn to use his new tools wisely. A. G. JONES