Chemical Education Today edited by
Michelle M. Bushey
Highlights from Year One: Novel Approaches to Instructional Instrumentation
Department of Chemistry Trinity University San Antonio, TX 78212
by Michelle M. Bushey Department of Chemistry, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas 78212, United States
[email protected] Over this past year articles in this column have featured authors commenting on a variety of topics related to the use of instrumentation in the undergraduate curriculum. I have tried to solicit and select columns that would be of interest to undergraduate educators in a variety of institutional types and situations. Topics and Costs of Instrumentation A few articles in this column described instruments costing over $50,000. Obtaining an instrument in this category would most likely involve writing a grant proposal, or using an instrument already on-site in a research lab. These columns included Urbach's contribution on circular dichroism (1) and Blonder et al.'s description of atomic force microscopy (2). Another category of contributions described instruments in the $20,000 to $50,000 range. These instruments might require a grant proposal or in some cases may be acquired with institutional funds. These examples include Zlovinka's and Stock's description of the use of microwave ovens (3), and Bower's and Blanchet's description of pyrolysis-GC options (4), although that same article also presents a low-cost approach that you can use to test the waters before taking the plunge. Some other types of instrument approaches are very inexpensive to implement. Brown discussed using IR spectrometers (5), which most educators already have, in courses where these spectrometers are not usually found, more specifically in lower-division chemistry courses. Vannatta, Richards-Babb, and Solomon described personal analysis systems (6) that cost less $500 each so that an entire lab can be outfitted for less than $10,000. Mendez et al. described another low-cost option, microplate readers (7). Finally, two contributions addressed the issue of how to obtain the funds to acquire some of the instruments described. Hixson, Chang, and Holmes gave a brief history and status of the NSF-CCLI program, now called TUES (8). This is the program that many of us turn to when raising funds to purchase teaching instrumentation. Because just understanding how a funding program works is not always enough to ensure your proposal will be funded, Wenzel gave us some tips on how to turn good proposals into great ones (9). I hope that each of you found something useful in at least one of these contributions. Contribute to the Conversation I would like to thank all of the contributors over this past year for taking time to make this column possible, and I believe a success. If you liked what you read and would like to see this column continue, then I need your help and your contributions! If you have an idea for a column related to the use of instrumentation
_
in teaching laboratories, send me an e-mail message describing your idea. It takes a minimum of four months from the time of that e-mail to publication, although many articles in this column take longer if others are already in the queue. So start early! Keep in mind that submissions to this column are internally reviewed rather than being extensively peer reviewed. These are short articles (up to 1600 words or so) designed to bring topics related to instrumentation to the attention of educators: instrumentation topics they may have overlooked, re-envisioning of familiar instrumentation; hot new teaching instruments, or instruments that are coming on the horizon. When the columns are focused on the instrument itself, especially newer options, the column should include a table perhaps of the main manufactures, with typical costs and features outlined, Web site links for more information, and mention of options that people would want to consider before purchasing. Mention should be made of all the key suppliers of instruments suitable for an instructional setting. Of course, a key component is why one would want to include the topic or instrument in the curriculum. Please keep in mind these are not descriptions of particular lab experiments. That goes elsewhere in the Journal. As you draft and propose an article for this column, please take note of two requirements that often arise. The first is that photographs of equipment showing a company's name or logo must have requisite written publication permission from that company in order to be included in the article (e-mail suffices!). Written permission is not usually difficult to obtain; in fact, many companies will also provide high-quality images for authors to use. This is usually well worth the effort as the photos can greatly enhance the articles. Starting the permission obtaining process early helps avoid publication delays. The second requirement concerns using primary sources (typically from the manufacturer or purveyor of the equipment) and providing current URLs of those sources of specifications and feature and model comparisons. Possible Future Topics The range of topics is really open. Contributions on how to bring instrumentation to students on a limited budget, or with limited instructional time are especially welcome. Instrumentation solutions of particular interest to specific types of institutions, such as two-year colleges, are also encouraged. Conversely, for higher-cost instrumentation, I would like to see some columns on CE, UPLC, DART/DESI MS sources, and TOF. If you know what those abbreviations stand for, please consider sending me an e-mail message to discuss a possible column. I would also like to hear from those of you who make use of resources at national labs, or perhaps synchrotron sites, or
_
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Vol. 88 No. 1 January 2011 10.1021/ed101006c Published on Web 11/01/2010
_
Journal of Chemical Education
9
Chemical Education Today
other “big science” resources. And of course, I want your other great ideas too! This column cannot continue unless you participate. Please consider drafting a contribution. Literature Cited 1. Urbach, A. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 891–893. 2. Blonder, R.; Joselevich, E.; Cohen, S. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 1290-1293. 3. Zovinka, E. P.; Stock, A. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 350–352.
10
Journal of Chemical Education
_
Vol. 88 No. 1 January 2011
_
4. Bower, N. W.; Blanchet, C. J. K. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 467–469. 5. Brown, D. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 570–571. 6. Vannatta, M. W.; Richards-Babb, M.; Solomon, S. D. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 770–772. 7. Botasini, S.; Luzuriaga, L.; Cerda, M. F.; Mendez, E.; Ferrer-Sueta, G.; Denicola, A. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 1011–1014. 8. Hixson, S.; Chang, E.-W.; Holmes, B. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 247–249. 9. Wenzel, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 1128–1130.
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
