Editorial Cite This: ACS Sens. 2018, 3, 1609−1609
pubs.acs.org/acssensors
What Is a “Real Sample”?
Downloaded via 5.189.201.12 on September 28, 2018 at 13:45:51 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
R
ecently, I was in Germany visiting Wolfgang Schuhmann, a member of our Editorial Advisory Board. While I was sitting in his office, Wolfgangwho was worked on revisions of a paper with a studentturned to me and said “the referee does not like the use of the words “real sample”, what should we call it?” This question triggered a flashback to 1997 for me; I had just returned to Australia after doing a PhD and postdoc in England, and was embarking on my own independent research career. I was attending the major analytical chemistry conference in Australia, run by the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, where one of the plenary speakers at the meeting was the prominent Spanish analytical chemist, Maria Dolores Luque de Castro. Lola, as she is known, was at the very forefront of development in flow injection analysis at the time. She is a captivating speaker. I vividly recall her walking to the very edge of the stage, and leaning forward as though she was speaking to each of us individually. It was clearly an important point. As she spoke, I felt like the only two people in the room were me and her. And she said “what is a real sample? Surely all samples are real?” Those words were an epiphany for me. Of course Lola was right, I thought. The only sample that is not real is an imaginary sample. But nearly all of us use this term, even today. So, what should we call them? At ACS Sensors we ask authors to show how the sensor works in what we call “complex samples”. What we are asking the authors to show is how well a sensor works in the samples appropriate for their intended application. We are not suggesting that the sensors must work perfectly in the sample, but using appropriate samples makes it clear what developments are needed to advance the work. Linked to the idea of using the right samples for the intended application is demonstrating that the sensor gives reliable information in that sample. As discussed in the Editorial last month by Associate Editor, Eric Bakker, this really should also include comparing the readout that the sensor gives in complex samples with that obtained from a standardized analytical method, if possible. In some applications, an appropriate sample may not be complex, so it is not quite accurate to call it a “complex sample”. So, returning to Wolfgang’s question, what words should we use other than “real sample”? “Applicationappropriate sample” is clearly too cumbersome. And people would be inclined to abbreviate it to AAS, and surely in analytical science that abbreviation should be reserved for atomic absorption spectroscopy. What about “uncontrolled sample”?to imply that the measured sample is not just a standard, but rather contained things in the sample that might influence the analytical signal. But that clearly is not right, as “uncontrolled” implies so much more. Pondering this point, the answer seems more obvious. Surely the origin of the phrase “real sample” is a shortening of “real-world sample”. Not a perfect name, but better than anything else emerging from my musings above. So, we look forward to your next paper that will show us how well your sensor works in a “real-world sample”. © 2018 American Chemical Society
J. Justin Gooding
■
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
AUTHOR INFORMATION
ORCID
J. Justin Gooding: 0000-0002-5398-0597 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
Received: September 2, 2018 Published: September 28, 2018 1609
DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.8b00956 ACS Sens. 2018, 3, 1609−1609
