| Author | Message | ||
     Katarina Stenman (Kat) |
According to new studies the NIR regions streches from 690-3000 nm, is that correct. Does that mean that the overtones displayed in that region goes from 1st to 4th? | ||
| hlmark |
Kat - There's no universal agreement on exactly what constitutes the limits of the NIR region. There are also different distinctions made by different disciplines. This discussion group is primarily by and for chemists using NIR to do quantitative and qualitative analysis. For us, at the short-wavelength end, the distinction can be made based literally on where the "Visible" part of the spectrum ends, i.e., where the unaided human eye is no longer sensitive. That also roughly corresponds to the wavelengths where the overtones and combinations of molecular vibrations start to become too weak to observe easily, and absorbances due to electronic transitions become important. Even this is arguable, because there are exceptions on both sides (for example, the sea is blue because water absorbs the red rays, albeit EXTREMELY weakly, you have to look through hundreds of feet of water to observe the effect). But 690 nm is not an unreasonable dividing line, if it turns out to be conventient for your purposes. Similarly, at the long-wavelength end, 3000 nm separates the bands due to fundamental molecular vibrations from the overtone and combination bands. There are also instrumental considerations; the materials that can be used for the optics, the sources available and the detectors differ between the two regions. Again, there are exceptions, but a dividing line somewhere between 2500 nm and 3000 nm is generally accepted becasue it satisfies both the physics and the instrumentation considerations. But, as mentioned above, different disciplines have different defiintions. I once was speaking with a medical doctor, who consider "Near" infrared to extend only to 1100 nm; beyond that he considered it "Far" infrared. His definition was based on the fact that the instruments he used contained silicon detectors, or even photomultiplier tubes. There was an article in a recent Photonics Spectra discussing the various definitions that optical physicists use. Various sources placed the limits of "NIR" all over the place. However, the article also noted that the definition in the Photonics Dictionary was 750-3000 nm.; I suppose that constitutes their authoritative, non-commercial source. So to some extent, you can take your pick. Can you tell us more about the studies that defined it as 690-3000? Howard \o/ /_\ | ||
| Katarina Stenman (Kat) |
Thanks for your reply Howard! I have mailed you the link for my source. /Kat | ||
| hlmark |
Kat - I followed that link to the article (for the benefit of those who didn't receive the link) "An Introduction to Near Infrared Spectroscopy" by Jerry Workman, a good friend and colleague of mine and many (if not most) of the other members of this discussion group. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any reference to 690 as the lower limit of the NIR region. It's also true, of course, that different people have different limitations on various aspects of their visual acuity, including the wavelength range to which they're sensitive, so there's some natural variability even in that definition of NIR! Howard \o/ /_\ | ||
| Tony Davies (Td) |
Dear Kat and Howard, There is an IUPAC agreement on the limits of spectroscopic regions given in : N. Sheppard, H. A. Willis and J. C. Rigg, Pure and Applied Chemistry 57, 105 (1985). For NIR it is 780 - 2500nm or 12,800 - 4,000 wavenumbers. As this is the international agreement JNIRS has always accepted it and I have tried to get ICNIRS to conform. If these are the "correct" or useful limits is a discussion which can last for ever and no one will be any wiser. The important thing is to have a definition, so that when we say "NIR" everyone can know that we mean the region 780 - 2500nm. There has never been any attempt to specify the region by the type of absorptions. Overtones and combination bands occur in the mid-IR, NIR, visible and UV. Best wishes, Tony | ||
| Edward Stark (Starkedw) |
Kat and Howard The accepted limits of the NIR region were formally defined to be 780 to 2500 nanometers by the ASTM Task force on NIR in the early 1980's and approved for inclusion in E131 Standard Terminology Relating to Molecular Spectroscopy. I believe this was the basis for the IUPAC definition. I recommended these limits based on the upper limit of the sensitivity of the eye, below which lay the visible region, and the wavelength of the shortest wavelength fundamental vibration, HF, rounded down to 2500 nm. | ||
| Solomon Abebe |
Hi there, i have difficulty in calculating the second over tone of NIR using this formula l/2 +(l*(0.001,...0.05)) but i can get the first over tone. How do i calculate for 2nd and 3rd over tone? Thanks Solomon | ||
| hlmark |
Solomon - it's not clear what your difficulty is. I'm going to guess that when you use the formula, the value you calculate is reasonably close to, but not exactly the wavelengths you measure for those absorptions. This arises from the use of the classical picture of molecular vibrations that is implicit in the use of the term "overtones". According to this picture, overtones are at exact multiples of the fundamental frequency (and therefore at exact fractions: 1/2, 1/3, etc, of the wavelength of the fundamental absorbance band). In physical reality, "overtones" are due to transitions between energy levels spaced more than one step (quantum number) apart. Quantum mechanics, furthermore, tells us that these molecular energy levels are not evenly spaced. If they were evenly spaced then indeed, an "overtone" would require exactly twice (or three, or four, etc. times) the energy (fall at one-half (third, etc) the wavelength) as the fundamental. Since the levels are not evenly spaced, but tend to be closer together at higher quantum numbers, the energy needed is somewhat less than an exact multiple of the fundamental, placing the corresponding absorbance band at a somewhat longer wavelength than the calculation using the exact multiple would indicate. Howard \o/ /_\ | ||
| Gary Ritchie |
The USP, in grappling with this definition has settled upon the following via a fairly rigorous debating process that has been going on for about 3 years now among pharmaceutical industry users and NIR experts. This is what we settled upon: Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is a branch of spectroscopy that shares many of the principles that apply to other spectroscopic measurements discussed in Spectrophotometry and Light-Scattering (USP Chapter 851). The NIR spectral region includes two subranges. The short-wavelength or Herschel range extends from approximately 750 to 1100 nm, (~13,333�9000 cm�1), while longer wavelengths between 1100�2500 nm comprise the traditional NIR region. There are three significant points about this definition and how we arrived here: 1. It is the only official NIR definition in the world that recognizes both discoverers of the NIR part of the electromagnetic spectrum, Sir William Herchel and Karl Norris. 2. The 750 nm was arrived at from initially 700 nm, to 780 nm, then to 750 nm. The discussion on this is quite convoluted, but 750 nm appears to be chosen based on the cutoff between visible and NIR detector components. 3. The notation for converting wavelength to wavenumber is purposely not given for the region from 1100 nm - 2500 nm because historically, one did not calibrate gratings in wavenumber and that it is correct not to define the "Traditional NIR Range" by the corresponding wavenumbers. The fact is that the first modern instrument for NIR (the one that Karl Norris is credited with building and using at the USDA) was a grating instrument and therefore results in the uniform dispersion of light measured in wavelength units. This basically explains the approach at USP for arriving at this definition. I think it is again important to note that it correctly recognizes both discoverers appropriately. To me, this has an esthetic appeal to it in that it makes it accurate and correct by reflecting the underlying truths behind both of their respective roles in the science. I know Tony appreciates this as he has told me so, and I hope that you all now can appreciate what is behind the USP definition. Gary E. Ritchie Scientific Fellow For PAT U.S. Pharmacopeia 12601 Twinbrook Parkway Rockville, MD 20852 Phone: 301-816-8353 email [email protected] | ||
| art springsteen |
Gary, Thanks for an interesting take on the wavelength definitions. it is equally as confusing in the color range as 'defined' by CIE and ASTM. There is a 'full range' of 360-830 nm, and a dsecond definition of full range as 380-760 nm. So what do most instruments use, you might ask. How about 400-700 nm? In truth, there isn't a great contribution to color below 400 nm or above 700 nm, unless you are talking about illumination of materials that may fluoresce, then it DOES matter. The magic number 750 nm isn't very magic. In Karl Norris's old instrument (a Cary 14), the photomultiplier tube was efficient up to at least 800 nm (and more likely around 850 nm) with no trouble; ditto the PbS on the other side. The more likely issue was the efficiency of the gratings (or, in the case of Karl's Cary-14, the prism- grating system). At some point, we in the NIR community (and I span both color and NIR, with ocassional forays into the UV and MIR) should give a serious look to where the significant bands end and call that the start of the NIR. Or am I totally off the wall here??? Art Springsteen Ph.D. Resident Spectroscopic Curmudgeon Avian Technologies LLC | ||
| hlmark |
Gary - I have one problem with the reason you give (or quote the USP as giving) for the limit of what is considered "NIR": 750 nm is hardly a "cutoff" between detector types. "Visible" detectors (at least the most common ones, counting those of historical interest) include photocells (and photomultipliers), Si detectors, and photographic film. Si detectors are naturally sensitive to 1100 nm. The others included special "near-infrared" types that were sensitive to at least 1000 nm. Similarly, the most common "nearinfrared" detector is PbS, which is sensitive down to at least 600 nm, albeit with reduced sensitivity. So "detectors" alone is hardly a reason to set a threshold. More important is the design of an instrument, as Art discusses. The spectral range available is determined by several factors. The detector is one. The source is another, and the grating is a third, critical one. The design of the grating, which specifies the lines per mm and the blaze angle, is based on consideration of the spectral range desired as one important criterion. A fourth item that can limit the spectral range of an instrument is inclusion of blocking filters, designed in specifically to allow only the desired wavelengths to pass through the system. The key word here is SYSTEM: it is the combination of components chosen that limits the spectral range; no single part of the instrument will necessarily set the wavelength range limits all by itself. Therefore the range is set by the instrument designer, based on what the instrument is supposed to do. The defined limits are then implemented by some combination of choices in the design or selection of the above-listed elements. \o/ /_\ | ||
| Gary Ritchie |
Art, Howie, Thanks for the physics lesson! I stand corrected, Howie, while I meant to imply "the system," I mentioned detector, but also meant to mention the grating, as part of the optics responsible for limiting the usable range for NIR. As you can see, the three values batted around, actually four: 690, 700, 750 and 780 nm, all have been cited with no real understanding of the history of the criteria evaluated. I suggest some ways to get to the bottom of this: 1. Let's ask Karl what useful data he actually produced with the first instrument in those regions and did he consider bands in that region useful. 2. Obviously Jerry's work pushes the limits, but what is the "useful working lower limit?" 3. What was IUPAC's criterion for selecting 700 nm? 4. What does Peter G. say? Rob L.? Obviously what will ultimately determine what we can use in the pharmaceutical industry for any NIR inst. (lab or process) will be based upon what we can validate on (accuratly, repeatably, and precisely). What say you NIRVWoG / PQRI / PASG experts out there? Gary | ||
| hlmark |
Gary - we can ask Karl and the others, but it's more likely to sow more confusion than to clear it up. The fundamental problem is that there is in nature, no distinction between the spectral regions. It is purely a human construct, and each person (or group) constructs based on what's useful to them. So I have no problem with IUPAC specifying 780-2500 as "the NIR region" as long as we realize that applies only to chemists. I also have no problem with pharmaceutical scientists using a different definition if that is better suited to their purposes, although I would prefer to see different groups agreeing with each other, purely for the goal of minimizing confusion in the future. If I understand Tony's above message correctly, there was no justification given by IUPAC for their choice of specification. In my mind that implies that they did it somewhat arbitrarily because they needed to define SOMETHING as "NIR" and the range they came up with is as good as any other. We can, after the fact, note the correspondences of those choices to various physical phenomena, but apparently those are not necessarily the "official" reasons. I imagine that there was considerable argument, and all the physical effects brought up, until finally there was a concensus that the range chosen was the "least worst" choice! \o/ /_\ | ||
| David W. Hopkins (Dhopkins) |
Gary, I really have a problem with USP coming up with a "new" definition of NIR as 750 - 2500 nm. I think it leads to confusion, and even fighting and contention. The NIR community has discussed this for a long time, and finally there was some resolution with the IUPAC document as cited by Tony. The agreement on terminology is what is important, so we can speak and write and really communicate clearly. I used to do visible spectroscopy on plant pigments, and ran the scans out to 800 nm because the instrument was capable of this, and it was a nice round number. I was able to see 730 nm light (to me it is a dark red, and I believe 750 was still visible), so that to me qualifies it as visible. By 800 nm, I could no longer see anything, so that would qualify as NIR. I'm sure that there was plenty of discussion at the IUPAC meetings, knowing how ASTM committees operate. I welcome the IUPAC decision, and I would like to see the USP and FDA follow suit, just so we don't have different terminology depending on the audience. Yes, USP can decide it would suit their purposes better to select the limit as 750 nm, that is within their power. But what difference does that 30 nm make? What are the compelling arguments that make 750 nm preferable to 780 nm as a term? No matter what limit you select, you will find electronic transitions in the NIR, and vibrational overtones and combinations in the Visible. That's nature. Where you decide to start and stop your acquisition of spectra depends upon your instrumentation. That's practice. But the terminology is up to people to decide, and I favor agreeing on one limit, if possible. Regards to all, Dave | ||
| hlmark |
Gary - Dave said what I was trying to say, except that he did it much better than I did. \o/ /_\ | ||
| W. Fred McClure (Mcclure) |
Gary, Regardless of the source of definitions, it does not help the NIR community to continually contend with definitions (viz. IUPAC's definition that the NIR is from 780-2500 nm), UNLESS a redefinition has a new found, "revolutionary basis". We should support the definition established by Harry Willis and others established years ago (1985), a decision that had a lot of support. There is no new evidence that there is a better definition. Personally, I always liked to use 700-3000 nm - but when I found that a large body of people had decided on 780-2500 nm I hopped aboard. Since that day, I have never (never!) found a case where it was "important" to dispute this definition. Now we can talk about the short-wavelength region and the long-wavelength region - there will always be personal preferences for the divisions. But let's subscribe to IUPAC's definition for the full NIR range. Now when we go back in the lab, we can use what we want - but when we publish we should not be divided. We use UV-enhanced silicon detectors to cover the region form 380-1100 nm (actually you don't get much above 1050 - the S/N ratio is horrible there). PbS will give pretty good data over the region 900-2600 nm. However, these facts should not affect the NIR definition established by IUPAC. I would encourage the Pharmaceutical Industry to subscribe to the IUPAC definition - if for no other reason than a different definition will be supported by a minority. Fred | ||
| Tony Davies (Td) |
Dear Gary et al. As usual Gary you manage to spark several different ideas in one short message! I suggest that the reason that you have been struggling with the definition is that you are trying to accommodate two (or more) different ideas which, if not orthogonal, are at very different angles. I would prefer to keep things simple, then it is easier to explain to outsiders what we are doing. The NIR region is defined by an international (IUPAC) agreement. It is 780 � 2,500nm or 12,800 � 4,000 cm-1. The 780nm boundary is a detector limit � supposedly the human eye. Near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy must be spectroscopy in the NIR region. If we go outside of either boundary then it is either visible spectroscopy or mid-IR spectroscopy. What we do (using mainly NIR) is multivariate analysis or chemometrics. And we have discussed that one at length but there is a consensus that it is not limited to NIR and in the future I am sure we will see many more methods that use combinations of information from UV, visible, mid-IR, Raman and NIR spectroscopies. Additional Notes � I approve of anyone referring to Herschel for the 780-1100 nm sub-region; when teaching I refer to the 1100 � 2500 as the Norris sub-region and assume that is what you intended. � Although Howard is quite correct that the PbS detector is sensitive well below 1100nm the silicon detector does drop-off very rapidly from 1080 -1100 so 1100 made a very sensible place to switch detectors. This was in the Neotec 6350 and has been followed by most other dual detector NIR instruments. � Wavenumbers had been used by spectroscopists for many years before the introduction of (so-called) FT instrumentation because it gives a scale which is linear in energy (thus overtones appear at very nearly equal intervals). � While Karl�s instrument heralded the modern use of NIR in multivariate analysis, most of the theory of NIR spectroscopy had used spectra from grating instruments. (Which may have been scaled in wavelengths or wavenumbers). Best wishes, Tony | ||
| hlmark |
Tony - I think the question of switching detectors is beside the point: yes, as far as I know everyone does it at 1100 nm, for the reasons you give. But that has nothing to do with the division between NIR and visible, since it's well into the NIR region by everybody's definition. But I've used PbS at wavelengths as low as 600 nm, and measured fairly decent spectra (althoough at the lowest part of that range, say 600-650 nm, noise was starting to show up). \o/ /_\ | ||
| Tony Davies (Td) |
PS I forgot to mention that NIR news published Karl's first NIR spectra [NIR news 3(1), 12 (1992)]!! These were of intact hens' eggs measured as a fuction of time after laying. They were recorded on a modified Beckman DU spectrometer over the range 550 - 950nm in 1952. Karl found them when he wrote an article about the early history of NIR measurements at Beltsville. They were trying to measure "freshness" in eggs for which these spectra were not useful and had remained in his files for 40 years! So at that date he was just over half into NIR and it was another ten years before he became immersed in �Norris� NIR. Tony | ||
| Tony Davies (Td) |
Howard, I was discussing the reason why we have two (unofficial) sub-regions within the NIR region. Tony | ||
| Gary Ritchie |
All, I can only respond to what has already been done by the NIRVWoG, PASG and PQRI folks, of which Tony, Howard, Karl, and I were participants in. Now as far as Dave's opinion is concerned, and Fred's, I am going to say this as politely as I can without sounding disrespectful, of which you all know I am not. I don't want to mince words here, so I am going to be staight up front and to the point. Being in the middle of anything is not easy, certainly when I have very little experience compared to all of you. But when I entered into this fray, I warned everyone in both the NIR and chemometrics communities that Pharma was coming to use these respective technologies, and as Woody has observed, Pharma people just don't follow everyone else's rules. Not that they make up their own, but they tend to modify and tweak to suit their needs. And sometime rightfully so, based on the risk factors involved in what they are doing! I argued very strongly for years for everyone who has knowledge of these things to jump in and be counted for, or your voice will not be heard. I argued for the IUPAC definition (I have the emails to prove it!) I argued for the best available definitions for chemometrics. Howie said faggetaboutit, been there done that and you can't get any two people to agree so move on. OK. So where are we? We are where I said we were two years ago. CNIRS and ICS better get of their white ivory tower A@#$s and either participate in what pharma is doing, or sit by and watch the FDA and big pharma have their way with your lifes work. So Dave, you're a day late and a dollar short, whether you like it or not, you did not participate when the decisions were made so suffer the consequences. I now work for USP, and participate in the ASTM process. I have been warning CNIRS (and ICS and NAICS folks) by way of communicating to both Fred and Bruce, and Barry, Svante and anyone elese who will listen, to get CNIRS and ICS involved in these processes, because as I said in my most recent article " Currently, NIR and chemometrics roles are being played out on stage, front and center in our back yard. Let�s make sure the FDA and ASTM get it right. You will hear more about this as the 12th IDRC approaches." So keep wasting your time hiding out here on this site attacking me, or get out there and make it right. Here is what I know you can do right now to get the NIR and chemometrics gods involved in realpolitk: 1. Join the ASTM and make sure that your concerns are represented, hell you might even convince these folks that you really are experts and do know what you are talking about. Go to ASTM website. 2. Become a member of one of the many USP committees and maybe even a Council of expert member by going to the USP web site and sending in your application, CV etc... Stand up and be counted for. I apologize if I have offended anyone, but at this point it seems to me the lip service on this site is not going to solve any of these issues. The USP and ASTM process are what they are. That means that they are continuously in revision, nothing is ever set in stone. So.... The ball is in CNIRS and ICS courts. If I have offended anyone, then good, your not dead and your anger should be a sign to you to get with it. Take this to mean that you have just been pinched and noticed that there is work to do (and maybe some $$$ to make). Now if this isn't the truth, then I don't know what is. As they say in the movies, "I'm just the messenger." Gary | ||
| hlmark |
Gary - I appreciate your feelings and you're right, ASTM and USP and the FDA could use all the help they can get, and it behooves the experts to provide that help. But on the other hand, I think you shouldn't be too hard on them. Until Tony sent his reminder, I'd forgotten that IUPAC had defined what constituted the "NIR" spectral region. So at least they were proactive enough to provide IUPAC with a definition of their subject. By contrast, on the other hand, the Chemometrics discussion group lit up like a firestorm when I made a fairly modest proposal that they should define their subject matter. I think they've come to a de facto concensus on the definition in Massart's book, but to this day I don't know that there's an "official" definition of any sort for that term. So while there is more to do, give credit where it is due. \o/ /_\ | ||
| Gary Ritchie |
Howard, CNIRS has to start to do more than just hash this stuff out here on this site, that's all I am saying. It's not about credit. If I am going to take a hit because USP didn't define the range correctly, well who was around with you and I and Emil and Karl etc... when we were taking it upon ourselves to put our two cents in? I am challenging this group to be proactive and do something formally to deal with the reality of the situation, "out there," not "in here." And if you come back and say Pharma doesn't concern you, like I have heard some say, well then accept the fact that "they" will define NIR and chemometrics then, not IUPAC, or any other official organization. And like I said, when they define it, it will be LEGAL! I as much as anyone has said that these things should not be left to an arbitrary committee to decide; let the data decide, when and if the right experiments can be performed. But when committee is invoked, you have to be there with them on the inside so to speak. No one is going to change a committees mindset from the outside, no one. GER | ||
| hlmark |
Well, Gary, I support you on that. I think you know me well enough to know that I'll tell you like it is, when I think you're right and when I think you're wrong, both. The other time I thought you were wrong; this time I think you're right. \o/ /_\ | ||
| Richard Kramer |
Gary, I've been trying to sit on my hands during this recent thread, but I can contain myself no longer. I have to put up my hand and say something. And since we've agreed to speak bluntly .... If the pharmaceutical community has any desire to benefit from the extensive experience of those who have been successfully developing and deploying mission critical chemometrics analytical technology for a decade or two, and if they have any desire to minimize the chances for chaos by trying to harmonize their approaches, practices, and standards, to the extent possible, with existing ones, then THEY have to make a certain amount of effort in the way of outreach to those who are presently active in the field. If the pharmaceutical people simply come rushing into the china shop like a bull and expect the existing practitioners to automatically come swarming to them like a flock of ox peckers anxious to clean up their vermin, well... it ain't gonna happen. The idea that the mission critical aspects of the pharmaceutical community are unique is just so much of the stuff which comes out of the back of that bull. There are a great many applications which, if not developed and deployed properly, present the opportunity to blow up a plant, harm people, or kill them outright. To mix metaphors, there may be a number of different leagues, but when you get down to the basics, they all play a very similar brand of hardball. To date, the pharmaceutical types have not demonstrated anything resembling a reasonable record of outreach or attempts at collaboration. They have sent NOBODY to any of the relevant ASTM committees despite multiple invitations which were extended by at least one of those committees. They have not responded substantively to requests from an ASTM committee for specific comments on the deficiency the 1622 standard. They apparently haven't even bothered to read relevant IUPAC definitions. They also seem to be unwilling to make any effort to schedule a single one of their meetings to coincide with events where the existing pool of experienced practitioners is likely to congregate. I would hope that you are sending exhortations towards the pharmaceutical guys at least as often and at least as loudly as you are at us. | ||
| Lois Weyer |
Thanks, Rich. I have also been sitting on my hands! Enough said for now. | ||
| hlmark |
Rich makes a good point. The actions of the pharm group would seem to indicate that they don't particularly care whether any practices or whatever else they produce conforms to already-existing formal standards and/or practices. We can't control what they do, although we can try to persuade them to avoid sowing confusion. We can, however, control our own actions. So the other side of the coin is to ask ourselves whether WE care about what they do. Gary certainly does (very much, as evidenced by his actions); how about the rest of us? We've been following Gary's lead in trying to persuade them to join with us, so it would seem that we do care, at least to some extent. I also think it behooves us to care. As Gary pointed out, if the Pharm committee produces official ASTM standards, practices or whatever, and they go to the FDA with those and persuade the FDA to adopt them, then they will have the force of law behind them, whether we like them or not. Gary's point is also valid: we should do some outreach - but only if we care. But we have been doing that. Rich is correct in that it should not be one-sided, however. I don't know if or how much Gary has been supporting his formal invitations with "jaw-boning" to the pharm community, but certainly from our point of view there has not been any response to either the formal or informal attempts. BTW - I seem to recall that one of the points on their organizing documents was "Liason" - Gary, have you been in touch with their designated liason person (or committee, as the case may be)? I suspect that one thing that's going on is that the pharm groups feel they already have all the expertise they need (or maybe all they want). I certainly don't know if they're right or wrong - but I think I'd hate for them to be wrong - especially when I have to go to the drug store. For that reason I believe we can't afford to halt our attmepts at outreach. But part of that has also got to be to persuade them to reciprocate - and cooperate. \o/ /_\ | ||
| djdahm |
I want to call to your attention an opportunity to build a bridge between the honest, hardworking scientists and the arrogant Pharmaceutical industry foils. (Or did I miss the sense of the recent postings?) In association with the 12th International Diffuse Reflectance Conference (August 8-13, 2004; Wilson College; Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA; www.idrc-chambersburg.org ), we will have a pre-conference workshop devoted to issues related to the Pharmaceutical industry. Combined with the Monday sessions of the Conference, we are calling it a "Pharmaceutical Symposium". The subject matter was picked primarily by Gary Ritchie, USP (Symposium Chair) and Emil Ciurczak (the IDRC representative on the Symposium Organizing Committee). Chris Watts (FDA) has been active in getting us formal FDA sponsorship for the event. The only restriction that I put on them is to make sure that the Monday sessions were legitimate technical talks, unencumbered by a regulatory focus. After the workshop planning began to take shape, we are billing it as "PAT, FDA, and the Pharmaceutical Industry; August 7- 9, 2004". If there is an upsurge of interest in a forum to have the kinds of discussions that have been referred to here, I could make some time available on Monday afternoon. You may post ideas here or to me privately at: [email protected] Don Dahm, Conference Chair | ||
| Emil W. Ciurczak |
Hi all, I was waiting to see what "Gadfly Gary's" epistles generated. All of you have legitimate points and I read them all with interest. First, before I comment, allow me to point out that we are all on the same side. Having said that, I would like to clarify what I believe Gary was saying. The people in pharmaceuticals are merely working chemists... working under an additional burden: Government regulations and, worse yet, their own company's Quality Assurance department's INTERPRETATION of those regulations! With the recent interest in on-line process analyses, there has been a Renaissance in spectroscopy, mainly in NIR. The instruments have been getting smaller, faster, cheaper, better, wireless, more rugged, etc. Why? Quite simply, the industry has more money than the Vatican! While the "purists" of NIR and Chemometrics sit in towers and pontificate about how many nanometers dance on the head of a pin, the pharmaceutical industry just wants somrthing that gives answers. They don't care where the region starts ot ends, but can the numbers be validated (with a capital "V") for the FDA. The field is rife with self-appointed "experts" and "consultants" who are selling themselves as the "last word" on NIR. We, of the "pure" NIR realm, tend to look down at powder blends and tablets made much as they were in the 1940s. We are, in essence, doing EXACTLY what the "pure spectroscopists" in the 1950s and 1960s did to anyone using NIR, the USDA "food" analyzer. We tend to forget our roots as "applied" chemists, not worrying about where regions start and stop, but can we get the grain to the market faster? We used glorified adding machines and didn't need 2-4 Gbyte speed to get an answer in a timely manner. So, now that we are all grown up, and the pharma people want to play in our sandbox, we need to show them where the pail and shovel are hidden. It would behoove us, as (I think) Gary said, to get involved in the groups that the pharma people visit. Why? Because we are well-kept secrets, that's why! We need the $$$$ that pharma produces to remain relevent, so we should be "pro-active" in letting them know we are here. Trust me, I know about publishing in a specialized magazine. A lot of grad students are "discovering" many of the same things others and I published in the 1980s in journals such as "Spectroscopy." Now well-know, it was a "throw-away" when I did a lot of my early work. I was more concerned in getting it published than worring about WHERE it was published. My pharma areticles would have done more good in pharmaceutical journals, but it wasn't important to me then. Much like educating the pharma peole isn't important to many of my brethren NOW. It is fine to say "we know" and "we care," but, unless we stand in the lane where the cars are driving, no one will see us... and, the pharma people will "discover" all the details for themselves, right or wrong. That's why Gary and I (with the coperation and support of Don Dahm and the CNIRS) are running the weekend "retreat" on PAT (Process Analytical Technologies), sponsored by FDA and USP. We are trying, as Don says, to open paths of information to the pharmaceutical industry, enlighten the FDA and USP, and make NIR, not only relevent, but "correct" for all. So, you're all correct but you all need to bend a little, too. It ain't about us, guys, "it's the science, stupid." (Darn: I had a lot of words left over in my keyboard, didn't I?) | ||
| Gary Ritchie |
All, How foolish to think that anything or anyone is going to come for the services of CNIRS/IDRC. What I know is this, the best way to predict the future is to create it. I also know that it is downright fatal for this organization to sit and wait to be approached. I thought there was "strength in numbers?" I thought that in a sea change, if one of us becomes successful, we all become successful. The next time you are out plying your trade to the pharma people who will come to depend upon your expertise, just remember that you are part of a much larger, historical and experienced body that can play a role in educating as well as policy and standard setting activities also. I think we have an obligation to do what ever it takes to make CNIRS and its international sister org the recognized NIR educating, standard and policy setting body in the world. I think in return, the organization can only grow as more people, companies, organizations and governments began to recognize us. Believe it or not, there are still alot of pharma, chemical and other affilitaed pharma orginizations that do not have a clue about NIR and chemometrics or that CNIRS/IDRC even exists. So I am not out of line here when I say that sit on your hands and bite your tongue aside, no one is doing anyone a favor here by pointing out that all of my rantings and ravings here amount to what comes out of the back end of a bull. Continue to maintain your posture as the pre-eminant organization for NIRS in North America, continue to meet every other year, put out your newspapers, and have illuminating and sometime even entertaining dicussions on this discussion board, and watch non-members define your craft, set NIR standards, and make NIR policy!!! Gary | ||
| hlmark |
Gary sometimes gets a little carried away in how he expresses himself, especially when he gets passionate (and that's GOOD), but he has a valid point: in general, people don't come looking for you. Even when they should. Even scientists, who are "supposed to know better". Richard is correct in that they SHOULD be coming to us, as an organization (whether that be CNIRS or ASTM) if not as individuals (which he, I and Emil would like nothing better than to happen), but the fact of the matter is that they don't. As individuals, Richard, Emil and I have to work very hard just to get their attention - it's called Marketing, and Richard probably knows that better than anybody. As an organization, we're no better off. If we want them to pay attention to us, it's up to us to make it happen. Unfortunately, Gary is also correct: while they should come to us, the fact of the matter is that they won't. Look at how many scientific disciplines were invented anew in different places and among different groups of scientists, who thought they were inventing something new, and completely unaware that what they were doing had already been done - sometimes more than once. It's even happened to us at least once already - without OUR noticing (or paying attention to it, either): when we were using NIR with multivariate mathematical data handling to perform chemical analysis, did the general "analytical chemistry" community notice us? No, they went off and invented Chemometrics. Separately and independently from what we were doing. The consequences of that were relatively mild, but we still suffer from the problems of nomenclature that confound us to this day (a given term meaning more than one thing, and multiple terms for the same thing) So if we want to be relevent in the future development of NIR then it is up to to make them pay attention to us, whether we think that should be necessary or not. The FDA and the pharm companies have a lot of clout, and they can make their own rules. We have a minor advantage in that the FDA has a nominal (or at least an "offcial") interest in doing things "scientifically". Even so, the scientists in the pharm companies have the resources of their companies to draw on when approaching the FDA to convnce them that what they do is as "scientific" as what we might be telling them - and we can't compete with that. So the solution is to not compete - get in there early so that they will incorporate our views instead of reinventing the wheel, and have it become cooperation rather than competition. Much as we might not like it, it's about marketing and probably some politics, not science. And it won't be the first time science had to take a back seat. But it seems that it may be that or not being on the bus at all. \o/ /_\ | ||
| Gary Ritchie |
All, Thanks Howie. (and again, all of this from a seemingly simple innocent question about the part of the electromagnetic spectrum called NIR)! Now that the confusion is cleared up, I would like to add that I have discussed this at length with Bruce, Fred and others who would have the ability to advance the CNIRS as an organization that should be consulted by pharma industry persons, FDA, USP and other affiliated orgs in order that they better understand that: 1. CNIRS / ICNIRS exists 2. that it should be consulted regarding q's relevant to NIR and associated practices 3. that it should have representative members (representing the CNIRS / ICNIRS org, not themselves) on all pertinent pharma associations (e.g. AAPS (Association of American Pharmaceutical Scientists), ACS, ISPE (International society of Pharmaceutical Engineers), SAS, Coblentz, what else anyone? You get the picture? Bruce will be following up with something shortly, but I would also like to point out that while some of us would like to think that we are relevent and that all is well in the NIR world, I assure you, that from where I sit, I would beg to differ with this view, hence my urgency and insistance that THE ORGANIZATION, is what needs to be made visible, and not so much the science or its high priests and practioners. I remind you of another innocent question that one would think was so obvious that everyone should know the answer to, but obviously did not which subsequently led to significant discussion and a little article about the history of NIR in process analytics. So that and this incident has suggested to me that we are at a point in the history of NIR, that we all should not be taking anything for granted, let alone our future and the concept that "they" will come and find us. Ha! I doubt it, and that's not arrogance, just the facts. So along these lines, perhaps Howie and Jerry, or Emil or whoever else has a column, or vehicle to get the word out about THE ORGANIZATION, may want to write about CNIRS/ ICNIRS / IDRC. As Don has said, there will be ample opportunity for all of us to interact with FDA, USP and other pharma people at Chambersburg this year, but my point is that there should also be a formal mechanism in place to bring CNIRS into the 21st Century also. Thank you for considering my bull. Gary |