topics in
edited by
chemical instrumentation
HOWARD A.
STROEEEL
Duke Univenity Durham, NC27706
Instrumentation and Maintenance Requirements of Third World Laboratories The Experience of Zimbabwe S. D. Sithole University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare. Zimbabwe This survey of chemical instrumentation in Zimbabwe laboratories sought to assess the extent of use of various iustruments a s well a s instrument maintenance and purchase needs. In addition, it investigated common reasons why instruments were not in use and identified remedies for the problems. The survey also recommended ways to deal with the need for additional instruments in Zimbabwe. The survey was conducted between December 1989 and May 1990. Following a pilot survey to assess the feasibility of the study, a revised questionnaire was distributed to 52 laboratories chosen randomly from the telephone directory in the major industrial centers ofZimbabwe: Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru, Kwekwe, and Mutare. Laboratories responding to the pilot study were excluded from the final study. The industrial laboratories in the main survey included those in food, water, pharmaceutical, and mining enterprises and municipal, industrial, government, private and university laboratories. Most nonuniversity laboratories are involved in either analytical services or quality control. Not much research is carried out in government and industrial laboratories. I t is worth noting that Zimbabwe lacks a scientific and industrial research center to spearhead research to meet national research needs. The Questionnaire The questionnaire was mailed to laboratory supervisors. Questions 1-6 requested respondents to identify their institutions and the activities undertaken therein. Question 7 requested identification of each instrument available in the laboratory and whether the instrument was procured for replacement or upgrading purposes. Questions 8 and 9, however, requested respondents to indicate their equipment requirements and the proportion of expenditure on e a. u i.~ m e nin t relation to the laboratory's annual expenditurr. Inquestion 10 respondents were asked to indica~c,for each instrument, the extent of use, "down time", whether it was functioning or not, and if out of use, the reason i t was not in use. The general possible causes for iustruments being out of use were listed in question 11, and possible solutions to the problems of instrument maintenance were listed in question 12. For both 11and 12, respondents were requested to respond yes or no a s well a s comment on their 'Whining, H.W.; Spencer, D. J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 1987, 20,
24663. A300
Journal of Chemical Education
Table 1. General Causes of Instruments Being Out of Use Cause
Respondents %Agreed
Unavailability of spare components Insufficient foreigncurrency Lack of competent back-up service Inadequate periodic performance checks No local service agent Improper instrument use Lack of user training program Inadequate installation and documentation system Lack of service contract (or contract not honored) Inadequate procurement system
%
Disagreed
89
11
86
66 60 54 44 43 39
14 34 40 46 56 57 61
37
63
29
71
responses. Question 13 sought to determine the training needs for instrument technicians in the laboratories surveyed. Causes of Instruments Being Out of Use The general reasons proposed why instruments might not be in use and the percentage of respondents experiencing them are listed in Table 1. The most common reason was the unavailability of foreign currency to purchase spare components. Other significant reasons included the lack of competent maintenance service and periodic maintenance checks on instruments. Significant problems were also experienced in instances where an expensive modern instrument was procured and there was no local service agent. Factors related to improper use ranged from negligence to abuse and to the lack of user training programs. The misplacement of operator manuals and other documentation is a factor, as is inadequate planning for the installation and procurement of instruments. Good laboratory management can largely eliminate these problems. Such practices include providing preventive instrument mainte-
Table 2. Instruments Reported: When Purchased and Common Problems
Instrument Typea no
UV-VIS AAIAES GC HPLC IR OES ICPIDGAES XRF XRD CS analyzer MS GC-MS CHN analyzer
46
Percent of
Purchase Period Percent of Total
All instruments
4980
80-84
8589
30.3
19
26
55
IC ZC 62
22
Common Sources of Problems 3C 16
Wavelength drive and recorder Electronics system; no lamps Detector, recorder-intergrator, column Column, valves and seals Wavelength drive and recorder High voltage supply Radio-frequency,dc plasma instability X-ray source and detector X-ray source and detector -
Vacuum system 1
0.7
-
-
-
100
-
100
Furnace temperature controller
~~.
auv-vls: ultravioletvisible AAIAES: spectrometer; GC: gas-liquid chromatograph; HPLC: high-performance liquid . .- . . . specirophotometer; . . .. , atomic . . absorptioniemission . ,~ ,an,-- . m e ~ - ~ ~ . - ~ - . . >L ~ , ~ - - ~ . , . >... ~
~~~
~
2.
~
currentp1asma;XRF:X-raytluorescencespectrometer;XRD:X-raydiffracfometer;CS:carbonisuifuranalyzer;MS:massspecirometer;CHN:carbonihydrogeninitrogen analyzer. b ~ u m b eof r each type of instrument reporled. 41) %of total fully operational; (2) %partially operational; (3) % nonoperational.
nance, proper informationchecks, and specified procedures for carrying out the checks. Ambient wnditions of temperature and humidity have been reported by Whitting and Spencer' to accelerate the aging process of electronic components. Therefore, most scientific instruments should be housed in air-conditioned environments where the ambient conditions can be suitably controlled. This is a n often overlooked factor. To reduce instrument "down time" most respondents (76%) were in favor of holding training courses or workshops in instrumentation, instrument procurement and maintenance, and laboratory management. Further suggestions concerned the need to strengthen technician training a t colleges and Dolvtechnics and to ~ o ~ u l a r ielectronze igeducati& to the where it is taught in high school. Table 2 provides infbrmntion about the relative numbers of different types of instruments in use in Zimbabwe labo-
ratories, the time period during which they were purchased, and common problems experienced with them. UV-VIS spectrophotometers were the most common analytical instruments in the surveyed laboratories (cf. Table 2). At the time of the survey only 62% of them were fully operational. Their mean age was 7 years. The most commonly reported probIems were in the wavelength drive system of the recorder. Any damage to light sources was linked to improper use. AA/ES spectrometers, with a mean age of 8 years, were the second most commonly reported analytical instrument; 94% of these units were fully operational. The most frequently reported problems involved the malfunctioning of the microprocessor for the microprocessor-wntrolledspectrometer and the unavailability of consumables such a s hollow cathode lamps and gases. GC's and HPLC's were the third and fourth most commonly available instruments. Their mean ages were 8 and 4 years, respectively. I t is of interest that the number of HPLC's rose more rapidly during the 1980s than all other instruments. While only 33% of HPLC units were fully in operation, 67%of GCb were fully operational. I t canbe seen that HPLC's were more difficult to maintain than GC's. The commonly reported HPLC faults were mechanical: malfunctioning valves, seals, and columns, whereas the common fault for GC units was detector malfunctioning. IR spectrophotometers ranked fifthin number with most of them acquired between 1980-84. Two-thirds were fully operational. The mean age of IRs was 8 years. OES, ICPDC-AES, XRD, and XRF instruments each constituted about 2% of the total instruments surveyed. Their reported mean ages were about 10 years. Most of these spectrometers are rapidly becoming obsolete since automated versions are available now. These instruments are expensive and have high maintenance costs; about 50% of them were out of use a t the time of the survey. The common faults reported for this instrument group were unreliable high voltage power supplies, radiation sources and detectors. (Continued on page A302)
Volume 68 Number 12 December 1991
A301
topics in chemicol instrumentation Providing for Future Instrumentation Requirements The projected instrument requirements of various laboratories are entered in Table 3. The most commonly requested instrument was the HPLC, confirming the rising demand reflected i n the increasing procurement rate shown in Table 2. From Tables 2 and 3 the needs in the categories of NMR, GC-MS, XFR, XRD, OES, HPLC, AAS, ICPDCAES and TG-DTA instruments are obvious. The only NMR available in the country is in an irreparable state. With the ever-escalating costs of instruments and thc limited financial resources of'laboratones it is necrssarv in Zimbabwe to consider a n instrument-sharing scheme. 1t is suggested that a n instrumentation center be established to acquire, manage, and operate sophisticated instruments. Such a center would provide instrument service to indnstri and government on a cost-sharing basis. Increased remineration will be needed to retain the services of good technicians to operate and maintain these instrumcnk. Altwnntively, or in addition, laboratories equipped \nth dedicated instrumentscould share them with other Iaburatoriej requiring their service. D e s i p a t r d lalruratories should he established and oro\ided with d l i c l c n t funds LO procure the commonly required instruments and provide instrument service to others. The shared instrument program initially can be limited to specified, highly utilized instruments. The designated laboratories would be responsible for managing and maintaining these instruments. Under the term of ameement the instrument service could be made available & industry and government on a costsharing basis. Summary Aqucstlomaire wasadministered toS! local lahoratonrs in Zimbabwe to determme thc extent of'instrum~ntmuintenance and future instrument requirements. The most important reason cited for instruments being out of useahhut 331 were nonoperational nt the time of the surveywas the unavailability of foreibm currency for purchase of new instruments and spare components. Other reasons included the lack of competent bnck-up s e ~ c eInadequate , maintenance and ~ - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ oeriodic oerforma6ce checks. . improper use and inadequate training for users after installation. Su~eestions to alleviate these oroblems included closer staff supervision, training workshops on instrument maintenance, laboratory management and strengthening technician training. Most Zimbabwe laboratories surveyed are inadequately equipped. The commonly needed instruments were HPLC, AAS, GC, IR, and NMR. I n addition, this inventory revealed that most instruments were 6-8 years old in 1990. As a result of raoid c h a n ~ e sin technolow. these instruments are rapidl; becoming obsolete and-&tire replacement. To deal with these problems a promam of sharing expensive instrnments is recommended. Certain laboratories could be designated for this program andlor a national instrumentation center established. ~
~~
~
L
A
- - ~ ~ ~ ~
~
Acknowledgment The survey was initiated when the author was still with the Government Analytical Laboratories, Harare, and distributed with the assistance of Mr. C. Nyamushonyongora of that institution. The participation of the various local laboratories in the study is gratefully acknowledged. A302
Journal of Chemical Education
