Analysis - breaking things apart so they can be defined.

Chemical - the building blocks of matter.

Applied - real, not theoretical.

In today's world machines are expected to perform duties that even man does not yet truly understand. Rapid Chemical methods of analysis emerged at the beginning of the 20th century and all but replaced the art of chemical analysis. Very few chemists today are analytical chemists, and those that think they are are likely really just making chemical determinations without any preceding separations. Machines are performing the testing of elements and compounds within the confines of complex matrices. So much is this becoming the case that marketing uses phrases such as "Keyboard Chemistry".

A computer cannot perform a chemical analysis. An analytical instrument, by itself, cannot perform a chemical analysis either. It takes a human with chemical intuition based on education and experience to analyze things the way they really are. It is no secret to those "in the know" that currently used instrumental methods are developed by  the analysis of things the way they are not. By this I mean that instrumental analytical methods are developed by the analysis of pure materials dissolved in almost pure water or solvent. Other matrices may be tested, but for the most part are not. Hence, current instrumental methods of analysis may be good for 'clean' matrices but not necessarily even applicable to the material they are applied to.


The purpose of this little web site is to establish what chemical analysis really is. The applied adjective is necessary because chemical analysis is of no real economic value unless it is applied. Analytical methods were developed for economic purposes more so than for man's quest to understand nature. Both go hand in hand, however, because we cannot do what we do without understanding why we do it. In other words, the science of analysis must be understood so that we can develop proper intuition in the application of chemical analysis to real world samples.

All analyzers are not created equal. The accuracy obtained by all methods depend on the quality of the analyst more than on the manufacturer of the analyzer. Years of environmental analyses at environmental labs have implanted into the minds of the consumers of methods that all are equal, and competition for analytical work by price is fair. This price competition has lead to cutbacks in laboratories in laboratories resulting in a scale down of technician pay, and ultimately reductions in laboratory staff. Laboratory managers have compensated for the staff reductions by "dumbing down" through heavy reliance on automated equipment believed to generate equivalent results regardless of operator skill. Instrument manufacturers have propogated the problem by marketting instrumentation as "easy to use with canned methodology". To make matters worse, competition between laboratories and between instrument manufacturers generally comes down to specifications of who can detect smaller quantities or who can run samples faster. Quality is always assumed as equal.

Not all analyzers are equal, and not all analysts are either. The type of instrument used for a given task depends as much on the quality of the analyst as it does the type of task the instrument will be used for. The more routine the task the simpler the analyzer can be. Some key questions are:

1. How many samples does the laboratory receive per day?

2. How many tests are neede per sample?

3. What is the matrix of the sample?

4. What skill level is required for analysts?

5. Is sample pretreatment necessary? Will the analyzer pretreat samples?

6. What are the operating costs per test?

7. Will it meet my detection limit, accuracy, and precision requirements?