Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Analytical Scientist
  • Explore

    Explore

    • Latest
    • News & Research
    • Trends & Challenges
    • Keynote Interviews
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Product Profiles
    • App Notes
    • The Product Book

    Featured Topics

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Topics

    Techniques & Tools

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy
    • Microscopy
    • Sensors
    • Data and AI

    • View All Topics

    Applications & Fields

    • Clinical
    • Environmental
    • Food, Beverage & Agriculture
    • Pharma and Biopharma
    • Omics
    • Forensics
  • People & Profiles

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Sitting Down With
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Business & Education

    Business & Education

    • Innovation
    • Business & Entrepreneurship
    • Career Pathways
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Content Hubs
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Analytical Scientist / Issues / 2026 / June / Are We Too Afraid of Our Instruments?
Chromatography Sample Preparation Opinion & Personal Narratives

Are We Too Afraid of Our Instruments?

An obsession with spotless systems means we risk working for our instruments, rather than the other way around

By Jennifer Field 06/29/2026 3 min read
  • Full Article
  • Summary
  • Listen
  • Report
  • Quiz
  • Top Institutions
  • Topic Commentary

Share

Jennifer Field

Are we sometimes a little too afraid of our instruments? We’re taught not to get our columns dirty, to keep our mass specs clean. This is, of course, generally good advice. There’s also a trend toward modular, push-button instruments – which is perfect for high-throughput labs running very focused methods. If you’re in a contract lab with 25 instruments running 24/7, you want that kind of standardization, automation – and cleanliness. Many analytical scientists will – and do – thrive in those environments. But if you have the luxury of working in a research lab, and the freedom to explore, there’s so much you can do if you really understand your instrument and how to push it – how to make it do things most people haven’t thought of.

You want to know your instruments so well that you can hear when every valve switches. It’s like a patient – you listen to its pulse. You can see it on the pressure trace too: if it’s smooth, things are healthy; if it’s jagged, your “coronaries are clogged,” so to speak. Once you know the instrument like that – almost like a living organism – you can really take it in new directions. And that can lead to discoveries.

To illustrate what I mean, in our PFAS research we’re constantly looking for ways to simplify workflows and extract more information directly from samples. For example, we explore approaches like large-volume injection in LC and GC – whether direct aqueous samples or simple extracts – to improve sensitivity without adding unnecessary cleanup steps. We’re also doing in situ swelling experiments (two-phase partition coefficients) in NMR tubes, and even using thermal desorption tubes like an Easy-Bake Oven to see what volatile PFAS come off materials and products. It’s a bit unconventional, but that’s the point – once you understand your instruments, you can start to use them creatively.

Of course, there are definitely times when cleanup makes sense. For example, we use both low-resolution (triple quadrupole) and high-resolution instruments for our research. With low-res systems, you sometimes have to perform a cleanup step to remove an aromatic contaminant, for instance, and leave the PFAS behind – otherwise, you risk false positives. But if you’re using a high-resolution instrument, you don’t always need that. Adding extra steps just adds time, cost, and potential error – and can actually reduce accuracy and precision.

One area where I think we sometimes default to habit is solid-phase extraction (SPE). It absolutely has its place, and some matrices genuinely require it. But it’s worth remembering that SPE is not free – it comes with significant costs in cartridges, solvents, and waste, especially at scale. And in many cases, it doesn’t remove as much as we assume: it can retain matrix components that will later co-elute with your analytes. In those situations, alternatives like direct injection or large-volume injection can be underutilized options that reduce both complexity and waste. If you really understand your instrument, you can often manage matrix effects in-line using microfluidics and divert valves.

If you’re only working with small amounts of relatively clean water, just inject it directly. And here’s something most people miss: the injection volume. It’s an easily overlooked parameter, but simply increasing injection volume gets more mass to the detector – and better sensitivity. Most people go to all the effort of concentrating a large volume down to 5 mL, then only inject 10 µL. All that time, effort, and money gets thrown away.

Our philosophy is: keep it as simple as possible. Use cleanup steps when they’re genuinely needed, but don’t duplicate them out of habit – that’s just wasted effort. And don’t be afraid of your instruments!

But what if it breaks? Well, it might! But that doesn’t mean you were reckless. If you really know your instrument – if you trick out your autosampler, keep your needle clean, pay close attention to the system – you can make the instrument work for you, instead of the other way around, with relatively little risk. Regardless, instruments break all the time – for everyone. So be bold. Go play. Be creative. Explore.

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

About the Author(s)

Jennifer Field

Professor, Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University, USA

More Articles by Jennifer Field

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

Spit It Out
Chromatography
Spit It Out

December 4, 2024

1 min read

Saliva-based PA-MS test detects paracetamol overdose in just 10 minutes

The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024
Chromatography
The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024

December 11, 2024

10 min read

Meet the products – and the experts – defining analytical innovation in 2024

How Dinosaurs Ate Their Way to Dominance
Chromatography
How Dinosaurs Ate Their Way to Dominance

December 10, 2024

2 min read

Analyses of fossilized feces, intestinal contents, and vomit reveal how dinosaurs adapted to climate shifts

Charting the Contaminant Iceberg: Part One
Chromatography
Charting the Contaminant Iceberg: Part One

December 17, 2024

5 min read

Torsten C. Schmidt casts his eye on the contaminants of concern for the future and considers how much of the full picture current technology allows us to see – in the first of our two-part interview

Affiliations:

Specialties:

Areas of Expertise:

Contributions:

False

The Analytical Scientist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2026 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.