HE NOVEMBER ISSUE of this journal contained several stimulating discussions on the role and nature of analytical chemistry. We wish to comment on this question, not solely because, as Jimmy Durante would say, “Everybody wants t a get inta da act,” but because we believe our own experience encompasses the entire range of what the extremists on both sides of the question are modestly claiming a t the top of their voices. Before chanting our personal Misericordia, may we say that the Editor of this journal has for years spelled out the definition of analytical chemistry. B e was a pioneer, in this country a t least, of microorganic analysis, taught analytical chemistry, contributed to the field in original research, and finally directed one of the finest, best coordinated industrial analytical laboratories in the land. Upon invitation, our last issue profited enormously by the observations of R. C. Chirnside, probably the most outstanding and important analyst in Great Britain. Those who are fortunate enough to know Chirnside and have had the privilege of chatting with him know that he only scratched the surface of what is the real problem in the current appraisal of analytical chemistry. Our own Prof. W.W. Brandt had reported on the relative situation and attitudes toward analytical chemistry in Great Britain and the United States. Chirnside, with typical British courtesy, tact, and diplomacy, preferred to throw the questions toward the larger problem of how analysts in general are approaching their challenges and responsibilities. The consequences of this were transparently obvious. I t is not a question of the number of professors, number of courses in analysis, or number of endowed chairs in analytical chemistry, but rather the attitude and degree of enlightenment of the incumbents. Perhaps our esteemed friend Chirnside might agree that one could say, as of Calahad-“His strength was as the strength of ten, because his heart was pure.”
it mav establish our considered opinions and, collaterally, that it may spare the indignant from reading further. I. A century or less from now, what used t o be called analytical chemistry will be completely automated. There will be no particular need for chemical experience, “chemischer verstand,” or purely chemical justification for its practices. It will require only a detailed knowledge of physical constants and an explicit definition of the information which is required. 2. The classical analyst, while hopelessly pleading for a return to fundamentals, will have largely abandoned the early precepts, traditions, and practices of the art. At this point, having lost an appreciable fraction of our readers, we proceed t o our own personal “Via Dolorosa” in an analytical career. I n this statistical age, our personal experiences have a significance which is 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 0. On the basis of statistical significance, we rate very close to zero, but we would be, statistically, in good cornpany with the first man who landed on the moon and got home in time for supper! C ~ a s s i c a Analysis l
In our early youth at the University of Pennsylvania, we had two years of qualitative analysis. The most casehardened classical analyst, if still living, would blanch a t this fact. Even among the classicists it is a moot question whether qualitative analysis should be taught a t all, or whether it should be introduced as an innocuous ingredient in general chemistry. Our professor, the late Dr. John Hughes Muller (no relative) was a slight, cadaverous, chain-smoking savant. He was currently engaged in a redetermination of the atomic weight of germanium. VC‘e were always aware that any white sulfide obtained in the second group must be germanium. Years later we discovered that there is another white sulfide-zinc! We analyzed dozens of unknowns. Not those cryptically-labeled neat bottles, with everything in solution as soluble niutomati~n of A ~ a ~ ~ s i $ trates, but minerals with some of the dirt still clinging to them. Professor Muller knew that most of us were conI n order t o conserve time and the currently taking mineralogy and if we patience of the reader, we wish to make would heft the specimen, make scratch several flat statements of conviction. tests, and try to get a mineralogical This, for a twofold purpose: First that
hunch about, the nature of the unknown, it was “no go,” He had successfully smuggled prized and priceless specimens out of Mexico in his youth and knew all the tricks. Perhaps we had a textbook, or mimeographed notes, but our bibles were Prescott and Johnson, and Fresenius. Now if you wanted to know the properties of indium ferrocyanide and its behavior t80warda dozen reagents, you could find it in Prescot,t and Johnson. We learned thousands of empirical facts about the chemical nature and properties of substances and those pyoperties which distinguished them from other substances. We devised all sorts of short cuts to outwit the professor, listing all cations which would be insoluble in excess of ammomium hydroxide and excess of sodium hydroxide. As fast as we devised short cuts to the identification of an “unknown,” the professor would keep pace with our insolence. When we got too “uppity,” we would receive an “iinknown” of red ink. Simple boiling with sodium hydroxide would yield a yellow-green fluorescence from which we would conclude that t,he original was tetraiodo fluorescence or eosin. The ITniversity of Pennsylvania has never been a sectarim inst,it,utionbut it did offer chapel services from 10:30 t o 11:OO A . M . Muller ~70uldemerge from his office, wade t,hrough the fog of ammonium chloride fumes, and announce --“Chapel hour, boys, do your praying here.” Small wonder that with this group of enthusiastic, students he offered a second year of qualitative analysis dealing with the rare elements. Then, shortly afterward, came eniightenment. We entered the Graduate School at Columbia University. Although we became, afber one year, referee analyst to Professor Hal Truman Beans, we learned the modern approach t80 analytical chemistry. We learned about thermodynamics, orbitals, solubility products, and all the t’heoretical reasons why analysis is essentially impossible. One of our principal responsibilities was to prove that the electrolytic deposition of copper was, a t best, hazardous. Years before a t Pennsylvania we had had a special course in electrodynamics. Our mentor was Edgar Fahs Smith, Provost of the university. There were only two peapie in the entire world who really knew
INSTRUMENTATION what was significant in electroanalysis, and the American, Smith, was one of them. As undergraduates, a t Pennsylvania, we were inordinately proud of the fact that we were the academic grandsons of his professor, Wohler. I n a special laboratory a t Pennsylvania, conducted by Smith's brilliant student Hiram Lukens, we used to conduct the complete analysis of a silver coin in 14 minutes flat. This was a result of Smith's innovation of the rotating anode. As we became more and more conversant in the esoteric nuances of thermodynamics and a more receptive attitude toward the limitations of empiricism, we began to get a more enlightened attitude toward analysis. Instrumental Analysis
At this point we concluded that there were numerous physical criberia of a system which had true analytical significance. This was t,he beginning of our interest in instrumental analysis. After some 20 years in the field, we are compelled a t this late date to conclude that it was a complete waste of time and energy. Initially, with the suggestion that analytical informat'ion could be obtained instrument,ally and more or less aut,omatically, our notions
were received with hilarity. At the present time, analysis is so predominantly instrumental that the debate is almost a poor joke. I n essence, it all depends upon whether you teach or work for a living. If the last ditch classicists have any argument, let them return to the real fundamentals of chemistry, however empirical they may be. Editorially speaking, we have run the entire gamut of analysis from the rank empiricism of Liebig, Smith, Presenius, Treadwell, and Hall and all the rest up through the most recent ndvances. We are convinced that progress in analytical chemistry is largely in the hands of physicists and instrumentation experts in enlightened industry. I t is no secret that analysts still do not enjoy the prestige of their associate8 in other fields. Some of us seek t o ameliorate this situation by loud noises in management circles and with a modicum of success. R e , personally, ha\ e given u p the struggle by finding solnce in the far more exciting field of nuclear physics. What may be the most significant contribution of last month's discussion is the simple fact that analysis has earned, throughout the entire world, R prestige and exalted position far greater than the opinions of its dichotomous proponents and practitioners.
