The Right Road in Routine Analysis 1‘LUiS ago
Hon nil1 it nork? Sessions will be three weeks. nine per year, a t the Vniversity of Oklahoma. Present plans call for employment of one permanent instructor, and a minimum of 10 students per class. Companies will be allolved one representative per class, and will pay living expenses plus a tuition charge of 9350 per iveek. One third of the course will be theory, including the significance of various analyses. The remainder will be devoted to analysis under actual operating conditions, using manual, semiautomatic, and automatic columns. This training, brief as it may be, cannot help but be of value in one direction-standardization of techniques. There remains another important consideration, one applying not only to gaqoline plant analysts but to all analysts, and its impoi tance probably increases in direct proportion to the degree of routine. I n the words of the chairman of the XGk4’s Fractional Analysis Subcommittee, “Major errors are not due t o basic procedures or apparatus, and are attributed to human element factors, such as improper application, lack of understanding, inadequate training, miscalibrations. . ” Report forms for the NGAA’s samples 4 and 5 contained questions on the analyst’s qualifications, including years of experience, other job duties, and educational background. Sweeping conclusions from the statistics presented would be dangerous, but some general interpretations are interesting. Least group deviation was found among analysts of from 1to 5 years’ experience, more with those of less than 1 year, most with those having more than 5 years’ experience. Does this mean a gradual inattention and sloppiness because the analysis becomes somewhat second nature? If so, it is a dangerous tendency. KO significant difference was found in comparing the results of those who attended college but did not graduate and those without college training. As would be eupected, college graduates reported somewhat better results. Group deviation of college graduates trained in fields other than chemistry was actually less than that of the chemists; results from chemical engineers were significantly better than from any other group. S o significant difference in group deviation was shown in work of men and women, although the most accurate individual results were obtained by two women in the same laboratory, one with a degree in chemistry and one with a degree in chemical engineering, The entire KGAA program is stimulating interest in attaining higher accuracy and is providing a yardstick t o give the conscientious laboratory a basis for self-appraisal and selfimprovement. Careful selection of personnel, adequate compensation, and encouraging participation, after experience has been gained, in making recommendations based on laboratory findings offer interest- and morale-building factors. Only management can properly provide them.
I\ e n ere iunning m i l e I outine :inalyse. io1 large chemical company by a method it liatl long used. T i l i n g another technique, we were able to obtain results ieproducible but significantly different from those of the first method. Strangely enough, the company elected to stick to its time-honored routine, without even the curiosity to investigate why the tlvo techniques differed in results. This business of differing techniques may be a serious one; just as serious are the variations t h a t may occur with the same or different individuals using the same technique. For more than a quarter of a century the American Oil Chemists’ Soriety has offered its Smalley Award and certificates of proficiency in analysis. This program of coopei ative testing lias paid rich dividends in improving techniques of testing vegetable oils and oilseeds. With natural gasoline plants springing u p like mushrooms over the Southwest in the past few years, and a trend toward laiger and more complex operations, partnership involvements, sale of unfractionated liquid products, and separation of special components, the analyst in the natural gasoline field is becoming an individual upon whose word and methods of work may rest the gain or loss of product equivalent to many thousands of dollars per year. Management is finally becoming acutely aware of just how important this analyst is. Late this year, by action of the Board of Directors of the Kntural Gasoline Association of America, a permanent training school for natural gasoline plant analysts is to be established a t the University of Oklahoma. We commend thiq US a noten-orthy decision by that body. It is interesting to note the events and thinking which have led up to the decision to establish this school. There is a considerable variation in the educational and experience background of natural gasoline plant analysts, and the I1-G.A found out to its dismay that there is about as much vaiiation in the analyses they turn out. Lon- temperature fractional analysis is the backbone of this nork, and so a program was inaugurated to evaluate on an industry-aide basis the errors prevailing in this analytical method and to focus attention on what could be done about them. Following correlation in 1950 of approximately 300 results from 60 laboratories on three liquid hydrocarbon mixtures blended to high purity hydrocarbons from known compositions, a seminar was held in 1951 [Chern. Eng. S e w s , 29, 131415 (1951)] to discuss causes and cures. Since then two more hydrocarbon mixtures have been analyzed by 77 laboratories. Accuracy has improved, but still needs more attention. The S G A A has felt that individual laboratories are best able to judge their own shortcomings, and many are sincerely trying to correct them, based on results of these cause-and-cure programs. There is still an element of human inertia to overcome, however, and establishment of the training school may help to overcome this inertia and accelerate improvement.
.
923
