Editorial

What should we be doing with Computers?

This issue deals with the papers presented at the first International Symposium on Computer Chromatography and Associated Techniques, March 2 - 3 , Mainz, Germany. Let me first welcome all of the attendants to this meeting. I am sure you will have both an interesting and enjoyable visit. The organizers have arranged a broad program with international lecturers. The topics are timely and the format provides plenty of time for discussion. Let me pose two questions for consideration. What are we doing with computers? What should we be doing with computers? The first question is easily answered by looking at the topics for this symposium and a similar one held September, 1971 at the American Chemical Society meeting in Washington. We are using.to computers to integrate peak areas, correct baselines, calculate results, prepare reporting formats and to smaller degrees to search data files for significant correlations and occassionally to control the operation of the gas chromatograph. At the Washington ACS meeting almost every paper dealt with quantitative analysis. Most of the research and development time seems to have been spent on hardware and software: hardware to interface the G. C. and the computer, and multiplexers to allow input from more than one G. C. unit. The software development follows the obvious lines of acquiring, and processing GC data. The question "What should we be doing with computers'?" is not so easily answered. Obviously we should use, and we are using, computers to rapidly acquire G. C, data, correct, treat or compare these data and prepare reports. For laboratories performing routine analyses with more than 10 gas chromatographs the savings in both time and money has been well documented, One lecturer at the ACS meeting

stated that the use of a computer had converted the G. C. quality control lab from a major bottleneck to the shortest link in the analysis scheme. In fact chemists using G. C. complained of the large amount of data on their desk each morning. This case illustrates well the need to use the computer in making or at least helping to make decisions. Much G. C. data is taken and visually analyzed to see if a reaction or product is at "normal" levels. Computers could easily make this same analysis, draw a valid conclusion and either report the results, or even initiate additional action. What is missing is the analysis of the factors used by the chemist to arrive at his decision. In the case of the concentration level of a specified peak, the range of concentrations and types of decisions could be easily written into a computer program. In the case of a complex chemical stream, where the appearance, disappearance, or change of peak profiles or concentration could be significant, the software required is not so obvious. The final point I would like to make is that we should use computers to perform qualitative analysis. Very few instances of this use have been published. In both the Washington Symposium and this Mainz symposium the paper by G. Schomburg and E. Ziegler describe the Miilheim Computer System which includes identification by comparison with Kovats retention indices. 1 feel this will be the next fruitful application of computers to G. C. analyses. Once more I would like to welcome all of the delegates to this international symposium. May i encourage you to think about using your computer systems to help make decisions and perform qualitative analysis.

Harold M. McNair

Chromatographia 5, 1972

61