D. J. Leggett Department of Chemistry, University of Houston, Wston, Tex. 77004
The Undergraduate Instrumental Analysis Course A Survey of Available Equipment It is axiomatic that an undergraduate laboratory course teaching instrumental analysis requires a wide range of appropriate instrumentation. Ideally, these instruments should be dedicated to the course, though financial considerations often demand that some of the techniques be demonstrated using departmental equipment. Recently, the chemistry department at the University of Houston embarked upon a process of upgrading its instrumental laboratory course. As the
:It 12
Percentage Figure 1. Percentage of total available equipment dedicated lo the undergraduate laboratory 0003-2700/81/0351-27lASOl 0010 @ 1981 Amrlcan Chemical Sociely
first step in this process, a survey was conducted of selected American universities, to ascertain the level of instrumental support for this type of course. The results of the survey are presented in this REPORT.One hundred ten universities, chosen randomly, were selected from the “Directory of Graduate Research” (I).Forty-one replies were received. Each respondent was asked the approximate age and cost of the instrument(s) used in three major areas: separations, spectroscopy, and electroanalysis. These areas were further divided into: GC, high performance LC, and other chromatographic techniques: atomic ahsorption, UV-visible, atomic emission, fluorescence, infrared, NMR, mass, and other spectrometry: and potentiometry (pH, ion-selective, metal electrodes), conductometry, electrogravimetry, coulometry, polarography, and other electroanalytical techniques. Respondents were also asked to indicate whether each piece of equipment was dedicated to the undergraduate course or was departmental research instrumentation. Availability and Age of Equipment Just over 75% of the equipment reported was dedicated to the instrumentation course. A few universities noted that some of the equipment was also used by other junior and/or senior laboratory courses. This average is survey-wide and does not truly reflect the extent to which each university provides equipment for the undergraduate course. Figure 1 gives a het-
ter view of the situation. Fifty percent of the universities surveyed dedicate 85%or more of the total available equipment to the undergraduate course. The average age of the dedicated equipment is 8.0 years. The histogram, Figure 2, shows there is a normal distribution ahout the mean. It may he inferred from these responses that the full impact of microcomputer-controlled instrumentation has yet to he felt in U.S. undergraduate instrumentation laboratories.
ffj 11
-5 5 0
4
0
=
3 2
I
2
4
6
8 10 12 14
Age (years) Figure 2. Age distribution of equipment dedicated to the undergraduate laboratory
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 53, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1981 * 271 A
s-w~&&solve QUICK-CONNECTS your
problems,
time and money GAS CALIBRATIONI
-
-.
The proven reliability of SWAGELOK Quick-Connects has led to their use in application areas involving hydraulics, pneumatics, instrumentation, life support systems or where accidental intermixing of multi-fluidsystems need be prevented. A selection of applications are illustrated to show some areas where SWAGELOK Quick-Connects provide dependable handling of gases and liquids. They fill the need for compact, easy push-or.pull operation to connect or disconnect units. SWAGELOK Quick-Connects are avaiiable in male, female and SWAGELOK end connections, in sizes from 1/16" to 1". According to fitting size, pressures are from vacuum to 10,000 PSI (68,900 kPa) with maximum temperaturesto 450'F (232°C). Other features include: In-line shutoff valve requiring no clearance for valve handle Automatic shutoff when disconnecting 360"swivel action,at lower pressures Keyed feature with positive mechanical lockout system to prevent coupling of unmatched stems 8, bodies.
I
'.I
SWAGELOK Quick-Connects are available through local distributors.
I'
CRAWrunD FI1
G COMPANY
25900 Solon Road
Solon, Ohio 44139
Crawford Fittings (Canada), Ltd., Ontario b.
._ 272,.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 53. NO. 2. FEBRUARY 1981
__.._.>E CAR0
GASSI
2om
20-I
3
I
8
0
z
0
I
40
20
60
80 101
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Figure 3. Percentage of undergraduate dedicated equipment devoted to separations
Figure 4. Percentage of undergraduate dedicated equipment devoted to spectrometry
Figure 5. Percentage of undergraduate dedicated equipment devoted to elee troanaiysis
Areas of Study
reflect the relatively high cost of spectrometric compared to electroanalytical instrumentation. I t is also seen, from Table I, that departmental equipment is used most frequently for spectroscopic experiments. An attempt was made to correlate the humber of students graduated from ACS-certified,programs during 1977 to 1979 (2)with total funds committed by each university, inclusive of departmental equipment. There was no discernible relationship. However, if the funds per student for each university are considered, a pattern does emerge. The funds per student are calculated by dividing the total amount
of devoted funds by the number of students graduated, over the period 1977 to 1979.The resulting data are arranged into four groups based upon the number of students. The results are shown in Table 11. The smallest schools (1-20 students) have the largest capital investment per student, but also show the greatest variability in the direction of funding. The second group (2140) and the largest (61 and above) are quite similar in the level of funding per student. The third group (41-60)has a significantly lower level of support per student, for the data reported. Inspection of the data also reveal that, by and large, the smaller schools have a wider variety of equipment and devote more funds toward this undergraduate course than do the larger schools. In this context “larger” and “smaller” refer to the numher of ACS-certified BS graduates. The author is indebted to the individuals a t the 42 schools who responded to the survey. Copies of-the complete survey results, without university affiliation, are available from the author upon request.
The histograms shown in Figures 3, 4,and 5 indicate the percentage of all equipment devoted to the three major areas of study. The survey did not provide any information concerning the number of experiments performed on any one piece of equipment. However, 5%60% of all available equipment is devoted to spectroscopy, 3040% of the equipment is electroanalyb ically oriented, and only 10-20% is devoted to separations. Table I provides details of the average funds devoted per piece of equipment in each major area. The figures are as expected, and
Table 1. Average Level of Funding for Instrumentarlo
$23 171
$21 365
$2565
References
Table II. Funding per Graduating Student Compared to Size 01 Graduating Class 1977-79 HMM ol Ca.*
AW4.b 101
S W . 0 In
Told N u m h ol studems
crarp.
N
U~UP
1-20
19
$19 203
$2733 (15)-$74 420 (5)
200
21-40
11
$3 532
$478 (38)-$6361(36)
338
41-80
5
$1 894
$523 (59)-$3395 (49)
258
61-103
6
$3 441
$743 (97)-$7749 (64)
473
.NURbtr of A C S a n t M e d BS gsdustw. 1977-79. Awrage ol VOW Fundr)l(Hmber d BS w e e s aw-
pw Sludultc
1977-78, Iw each gr-
D. J. Leggett is assistant professor of chemistry at the University of Houston. He earned a Grad. R.I.C. degree in 1969, and a PhD from the Uniuersity of Waterloo (Canada)in 1973. His research interests include microcomputer control and software deuelopment for solution equilibria, and flow injection analysis.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 53, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1981 * 273A
