ISSN 1061-9348, Journal of Analytical
Chemistry, 2009, Vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 859–867. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.,
2009. Original Russian Text © V.I. Vershinin, Yu.A.
Zolotov, 2009, published in Zhurnal Analiticheskoi Khimii, 2009, Vol. 64, No.
8, pp. 881–889.
history of analytical chemistry
Periodization of the History of Chemical Analysis and Analytical Chemistry as a
Branch of Science
V. I. Vershinina and Yu. A. Zolotovb
b
State University, pr. Mira 55A, Omsk, 644077 Russia Department of Chemistry,
Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia
Received September 4, 2008
a Omsk
Abstract—In the periodization of the history of chemical analysis, it seems
advisable to take into account changes in the priority problems and objects and
methods of analysis and in the periodization of analytical chemistry as a
science, changes in the substance matter and the level of scientiï¬c research, and also in the place of analytical chemistry in the
system of sciences. Both periodizations are closely related, and the borders
between the periods approximately coincide. This allows one to use a united
periodization for educational purposes. DOI: 10.1134/S1061934809080152
When studying any process, one should reveal its basic
steps; this is particularly important in studies of historical processes. One
has to choose appropriate periodization criteria for the history of each
particular science, reveal differences between each particular period and other
ones, and propose and substantiate the borders between the periods.
Undoubtedly, any periodization is a matter ofconvention and is subjective to
some extent, because the number of periods and borders between them depend on
the choice of periodization criteria. Therefore, one should use the most
typical distinguishing features for periodization, which are intrinsic to the
studied process rather than external or arbitrarily selected ones [1]. This is
also true for the history of analytical chemistry (AC). The generally accepted
periodization of the history of AC has not been proposed; however, it is
necessary for the correct understanding of the methodological problems of our
science, for predicting the prospects and lines of its development, and for the
objective assessment of the role of individual researchers and scientiï¬c schools. Such periodization opens up historical and
problemoriented approaches to teaching AC, which is important for training
competent and thinking analysts. Considering the historical development of AC as a
branch of science, one should take into account the adjacent (and even less
studied!) history of chemical analysis as a professional activity. Note that
ìthe duality of historyi is typical not only for our science. Thus, the history
of pedagogics as a branch of science is close but not identical to the history
of school education, and the history of theoretical medicine is not identical
to the history of applied medicine. This duality was also noticed by historians
of chemistry; A.N. Shamin wrote that methods of analysis play the main role
both for chemistry as a system of knowledge and for chemistry
as an area of professional work [2]. The twointerrelated processes, (a) the
development of chemical analysis as a ï¬eld of activity and (b) the development of analytical chemistry
as a system of knowledge, should be considered jointly and simultaneously.
However, chemical analysis has a much older history than the science analytical
chemistry. Their
periodization criteria can differ. Obviously, the number of periods and their
chronological borders cannot coincide for these processes. In a recently
published monograph [3], we have proposed and used a certain generalized
periodization of the development of analytical chemistry and chemical analysis
(pp. 10–14). The aim of this work was to theoretically substantiate and reï¬ne this scheme. Possible approaches to periodization. Considering
the history of AC, some authors use the periodization accepted for chemistry in
general. This approach was implicitly used by F. Szabadvari and A. Robinson,
the authors of a well-known monograph [4]. Subsequently, this approach was also
used by the authors of some textbooks in analytical chemistry. The presentation
in [4] approximately follows the periodization of the history of chemistry
proposed by G. Kopp and developed in the 1950s by the Italian historian of
science M. Giua. Giua, distinguishing the period of prealchemy (until the 4th
century DC), the period of alchemy (4th–16th centuries), uniï¬cation period (16th–18th centuries), period of quantitative laws (the ï¬rst 60 years of the 19th century), and the modern period (since
1870 until today) [5]. Within these periods, Giua distinguished subperiods, for
example,
in theuniï¬cation period, the phlogiston epoch.
Correspondingly, the chapters in monograph [4] were given the names “The Beginning of
Analysis”, “Alchemy,” “Ana-
859
860
VERSHININ, ZOLOTOV
lytical Chemistry until 1700,” “Phlogiston Theory,” “The Epoch of Berzelius,’
etc.1 From our point of view, the use of the general chemical periodization
would be logical if analytical chemistry had still remained the main
constituent of a joint chemical science, as it was in the days of Lavoisier and
Berzelius. The irreversible differentiation of chemical science, which began in
the middle of the 19th century, calls for another approach; the more so, since
presentday analytics has generally fallen outside the limits of chemistry and
gained an interdisciplinary character. As M. Giua wrote, “in
the modern period … separate branches of chemistry obtained features of
independent sciences. This is why historians face the problem of separating
their history from the general history of chemistry” [5, p. 18]. We note that
the scheme proposed in [5] is now used by domestic historians of chemistry
(Yu.I. Solov’ev, D.N. Trifonov, A.N. Shamin, etc.) only to describe the initial steps of its development [6,
7]. Starting from the 20th century, these authors consider only the development
of individual chemical sciences, primarily, of physical and organic chemistry
[8]. Unfortunately, the history of analytical chemistry was not considered in
the monographs of the authors mentioned above. Undoubtedly, the periodization
of the history of AC should take into account the history of chemistry as a
wholeand the history of human society, but primarily, intrinsic (speciï¬c for AC) periodization criteria. Thus, an exclusively important
event in the history of chemistry was the appearance and downfall of the
phlogiston theory, because of which the special phlogiston epoch was
distinguished. This theory did not play a special role in the development of
AC, but stimulated interest in methods of gas analysis. Before the appearance
of the theory, in the years of its domination, and long ago after its downfall,
analytical chemists (from R. Boyle to C.R. Frezenius) solved one and the same
problem and created chemical methods of analysis and developed them on an
empirical basis. Therefore, there is little sense in distinguishing the
phlogiston epoch in the history of AC; one should more correctly distinguish
the period of the creation of chemical methods of analysis, which is longer,
than the phlogiston epoch. The necessity of using speciï¬c criteria for AC was underlined by the historian of science,
analytical chemist A.Kh. Batalin. In monograph [9], he
distinguished three basic steps in the development of AC: preclassical (to the
last third of the 18th century), classical (until the 1890s), and modern.
Within each step (period), Batalin distinguished subperiods. From his
viewpoint, the steps differ from each other by the priority methods of
analysis, which, in turn, are determined by the requirements of the society and
the general status of science and engineering. According to Batalin, the ï¬rst step is the
1 The
chapters in [4] corresponded not only the periods of thedevelopment of AC but
also to particular methods of analysis.
period of the domination of assay methods; the second
is the period of the domination of classical methods of analysis (gravimetric
and volumetric), and the third one is characterized by the extension of the set
of methods and the theoretical substantiation of chemical methods of analysis.
Thus, in spite of the fact that Batalin named the corresponding chapter in his
monograph “Basic periods of the history of analytical chemistry,” he actually
described changes in the priority methods of analysis rather than the history
of AC as a branch of science. He only speciï¬ed AC as an independent
branch of science formed at the end of the 18th century and the ï¬rst third of the 19th century, i.e., in the second period of the
history of chemical analysis. In contrast to Batalin, a number of American
historians of science do not consider the development of chemical analysis as a uniform
integral process. They describe the “histories” of different methods of
analysis absolutely independently of each other. An example is provided by the
collective monograph [10]. An insufï¬cient degree of generalization of
important material complicates the consideration of the modern step in the
development of analysis, when the number of methods drastically increased [11].
Undoubtedly, studies of the history of separate methods are important, and overall
analytical generalizations are of no less importance. A number of authors
writing in English [12, 13] agree with this. In the methodological works of
Russian (and also German) analysts,primary attention
was given to the general laws of the development of AC as a branch of science.
Thus, A.M. Tsukerman in his lengthy paper [14] distinguished the following
steps of the history of AC: —The creation of inscriptions of particular
procedures (Biringucho, Agricola, etc.); — The formulation of chemical analytical
problems (Boyle); —The appearance of generalized handbooks on analysis
(Bergman, Lampadius, etc.); —The development of systems of analytical methods
(Rose, Frezenius, Mohr, von Leibig, etc.); —The formation of a joint science on
analytical methods. This step was marked by the appearance of the ï¬rst scientiï¬c journal in the ï¬eld of analysis (Frezenius) and
the wide discussion of the theoretical problems of analytical chemistry
(Ostwald). The periodization of AC in [14] was ï¬nished only by the 19th century and the
chronological borders between the above ï¬ve periods
were not speciï¬ed. In subsequent works, Tsukerman distinguished the formation
of a number of relatively independent doctrines (theories) of the general
analytical nature (theory of ion equilibria, theory of analytical signals, identiï¬cation theory) as distinctive features of the sixth period in the
development of AC. In the last (seventh) period according to Tsukerman, the
most important works dealt with the
Vol. 64 No. 8 2009
JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
PERIODIZATION OF THE HISTORY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Table 1. Periodizations of
the history of chemical analysis Period, years Subject matter Priority methods
861
Characteristic of the best procedures cmin, % δ, % rel ?
