Letters
CALIBRATION SET MODE/TIME/REPEAT TO 1,40,0 MOVE SAVG ONLY" UP THEN DOWN. PRESS SRESET' PLACE SAMPLE TUBE IN PEAKING SOLUTION ADJUST WAUELENGTH CONTROLS TO MAXIMIZE READOUT SET MODE/TIME/REPEAT TO INT,10,3. PRESS 'RESET' SELECT CHANNELS (PRESS TOP OF ROCKER SWITCHES) ENTER CONCENTRATION VALUES OF HI STD ENTER CONCENTRATION UALUES OF LO STD N PLACE S/TUBE IN VHI STD' SOLN PRESb ;S AR' S LET CYCLE RINSE TUBE, PLACE IN SL0 STD'' SOLN.x PRESS L0'. CYCLE RINSE TUBE, PLACE IN SAMPLE, PRESS SMPr
Figure 3. Instructions for calibrating the Spectra Span III
programs can be written for any in strument having a suitable display unit. The programs can be made more or less detailed and sophisticated de pending on the requirements of the
users and the complexity of the in strument. In any event such programs would be of great benefit to new users and should be included as part of the manufacturer's software package.
Thomas N. Briggs Refractory Metals Division The General Electric Company 21800 Tungsten Rd. Cleveland, Ohio 44118
Nomenclature in Analytical Chemistry Sir: The following comments are of fered in response to Margoshes's let ter, "Flow Injection Analysis Revisit ed" (Anal. Chem. 1982,54, 678 A). Reference 2 in Margoshes's letter (i) does not provide any perspective on the history of continuous flow sam ple processing systems. The intention of that paper was to go on record stat ing: " . . . the penalty that is paid in unsegmented flow is either increased reagent consumption or greatly in creased pumping pressure." Time and the pertinent literature on unsegment ed flow methodology have dealt with this statement. The fact that several steps in an analysis cannot be automated at present (and may be difficult to auto mate) does not change the significance of the word "analysis." Its meaning is independent of how much automation can be implemented at a given mo ment. In Reference 3 of Margoshes's letter (2) the term "determination" was used with a different meaning from the word "analysis." We made no claim of automation nor of 260 analyses/h. There is no inappropriate use of words, nor misleading or confusing in formation given. Margoshes's com ment is lost in the different meanings of the words "determination" and "analysis."
Some afterthoughts: It is interesting to note that practically no book used in the teaching of undergraduate ana lytical chemistry clearly and consis tently distinguishes the meaning of several important terms, e.g., automa tion, determination, analysis, mea surement step. Some recent efforts to define the use of key words in our ana lytical subdiscipline are healthy {3,4). A N A L Y T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y in its Man
uscript Requirements addresses the frequent misuse of terms such as "analysis," "identification," "determi nation," and "assay." An editorial ef fort is made to require the correct use in titles, but occasional failure to de tect misuses in the texts of papers is acknowledged (5) and is understand able. We, the members of the profes sion, should be more zealous in the correct use of the nomenclature. The recently activated committee on no menclature of the ACS's Division of Analytical Chemistry (5) hopefully will help bring consistency to the lan guage of our subdiscipline. References
(1) Margoshes, M. Anal. Chem. 1977, 49, 17. (2) Nikolelis, D. P.; Painton, C-D. C; Mottola, H. A. Anal. Biochem. 1979, 97, 255. (3) Pardue, H. L. "Abstract of Papers,"
888 A · ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 54, NO. 8, JULY 1982
183rd National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Las Vegas, Nev., 1982; ANYL 139. (4) Kurtz, D. A. Chem. Eng. News 1982, 60,4. (5) Petruzzi, J. M., personal communica tion, April 13,1982. Horacio A. Mottola Department of Chemistry Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Okla. 74078
Reply: My usage of the terms "deter mination" and "analysis" was in ac cordance with the prescribed nomen clature of this J O U R N A L (January issue, ρ 155). The method of Nikole lis et al. required two or three injec tions into the FIA system for the de termination of the lactic dehydroge nase activity in one sample. I am sat isfied to have the readers judge wheth er the method yields 260 determinations/h as claimed by Nikolelis et al. My letter mentions that Nikolelis et al. did not claim that their method is automated.
Marvin Margoshes Technicon Instruments Corp. Tarrytown, N.Y. 10591
