Instrument selection and evaluation

Recent years have seen rapid increases in the variety, cost and complexity of instruments used in analytical chemistry. Gone are the days when choice was a simple task and any mistake did not lead to a major financial embarassment which had to be lived with for perhaps a decade. Not only is the capital investment required in the laboratory increasing, but, in the present world economic climate, the funds available are more limited and have to be wisely spent. It is not surprising, therefore, that much attention has been given to instrument choice and evaluation, particularly by clinical laboratory workers whose large workload has led to the development of much complex and expensive automatic equipment. In 1975 colleagues in New Zealand asked the Expert Panel on Instrumentation of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) if something could be done to ensure that isolated laboratories have sufficient information from manufacturers to enable an intelligent choice of equipment to be made. The Panel responded over subsequent years by producing a series of guidelines for the listing of specifications for various instrument systems. These were intended to ensure that the manufacturer provided in a standard format; all the information required by a potential customer before selecting a particular instrument for purchase. In producing their 'glossy' literature, manufacturers have a tendency to leave out important information which perhaps does not present their instrument in the best light compared with the competition. Each guideline therefore states-'Manufacturers using the following guidelines in the description ofinstruments, should state that they have done so, but if such a statement is made, no information mentioned in the guidelines must be excluded unless it does not apply to the instrument'. It is unfortunate that only very few manufacturers have made use of the guidelines and it is easy to think of many reasons for this, not all of which are laudable. To quote T. D. Geary: 'Perhaps the expense of printing new brochures could not bejustified by the number ofrequests for the information. It becomes a circular argument; if they are not available customers will not ask for them, if they do not ask for them they will not be made available'. It would be a great service to the community if more manufacturers would use the guidelines.