The gap between classroom training and industry practice is pushing analysts toward familiar techniques instead of the most appropriate ones.
Every analytical chemist has a favorite instrument. In a recent SpecAcademy panel discussion, five SpecAcademy instructors discussed how loyalty to a specific technique or method can get in the way of good science. Speaking about the state of vibrational spectroscopy training, Ellen Miseo, Secretary for the Society for Applied Spectroscopy (SAS) and education coordinator for both SAS and the Coblentz Society; Peter Larkin, Manager of Spectroscopy, Thermal Analysis, and Chromatography at Syensqo; Mary Carrabba, forensic and industrial spectroscopist and Virtual Officer Manager for the Coblentz Society; Jeff D’Agostino, Senior Applications Chemist for Specac, Inc. and a member of SAS, Coblentz, and the American Chemical Society; and James de Haseth, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the University of Georgia and director of Raman and Infrared courses, described a field where infrared (IR) spectroscopy is widely used in industry, underrepresented in academic training, and often overlooked when it would be the fastest route to an answer.1,2
Miseo pointed to a recent article in the Journal of Chemical Education, written by a professor who studies chemistry education that highlights the disconnect between the classroom and the laboratory.
"There's a major disconnect between what's taught and what's necessary," Miseo said.2 She noted that infrared appeared among the top five instruments used in industry. "But what academia is teaching is NMR, mass spectrometry, and UV," Miseo added.2
Carrabba offered an example of how training and practice can diverge.
"I worked in two major laboratories that hired NMR spectroscopists and then opted not to actually get an NMR spectrometer because of the expense," Carrabba said.2
Larkin said the problem goes beyond education. It shapes how organizations approach analysis.
"Unless you have an experienced analytical chemist, which in my world are worth their weight in gold, they don't necessarily understand when to use IR and when to use other techniques," Larkin said.2 "Everybody goes to their favorite toolbox and their favorite tool, but it's not necessarily the best tool."
He described a case involving a formulation from another vendor that contained 2-ethylhexyl tails. The analysis was needed for a registration document, which meant the component could not exceed 1%. The person coordinating the work was an NMR spectroscopist, and the NMR results showed many peaks, which indicated a complex formulation.
"This is a great application for infrared," Larkin said.2 "You could just quickly do a library search." In this case, he added, a trained analyst could even look at the spectrum by eye and identify the main components and their approximate amounts.
For Larkin, the lesson is clear.
"The core message here is that there are certain things that IR is uniquely suited to be one of the first analyses," he said.2
Miseo said analysts' habits often reflect how they were trained.
"If you were trained as mass spec, that's what you head to,” Miseo said.2 “If you were trained in NMR, that's what you head to. But it's not always the appropriate tool.”
SpecAcademy aims to change that, she explained, "to teach people what the tools can do, how you use them, and where you apply them." Additional courses planned for later will build on the same idea. "That mindset needs to be taught to people," Miseo said, "because if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, whether it is or not."2
De Haseth said the challenge does not end once an analyst decides to use vibrational spectroscopy. He has helped many people who knew that was the right approach but relied on a published paper or a salesperson to decide between an infrared and a Raman instrument.
"They end up getting a piece of equipment that provides a partial answer, but they don't have enough knowledge to go in and pick the right instrument," he said.2 "So it's not just between NMR and mass spec; it's within the field of vibrational spectroscopy, picking the right tool, and that includes the right accessory.”
D'Agostino offered a simple rule for choosing an instrument. He said the analyst's preferences should not decide the method.
“It’s the sample and the data you’re looking for that will pick the accessory … or the instrument," D’Agostino said.2
The panel agreed that analysts need training that looks past habit and marketing. They need a working knowledge of what each technique can and cannot do, so they can match the method to the problem.
