Real-Time Distance Research with IP Network Videoconferencing: Extending Undergraduate Research...

Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources

1224 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 81 No. 8 August 2004 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org

The impact of computer and Internet technology in sci-ence and technology education is found in Web-basedcourses, synchronous distance learning, and scientific re-search, including telemedicine (1), and interdisciplinary col-laborations (2–4). An extension of the use of distancecommunication is undergraduate research. Internet-basedundergraduate research provides geographical flexibility, andthe removal of distance barriers promotes diversity and in-terdisciplinary partnership.

To demonstrate the feasibility of distance research, weinitiated a pilot study between two laboratories located 28miles apart. An undergraduate student working at the dis-tant site participated in research on separation chemistry andwas mentored from the home site through videoconfer-encing. The project incorporated 1 week of independenttraining and informal observation and 8.5 weeks of labora-tory work. The week of training included independent useof the instructional Web site1 on capillary electrophoresis(CE) and protocols for recording data in a laboratory note-book, as well as use of the Web camera. Research then com-menced with the student and advisor communicating via theInternet using H.323 duplex video communication. To fa-cilitate the research, two lab-built CE systems were utilized.One was installed in a research laboratory at the distant site(in Canton, Ohio) and the second at the home site (in Kent,Ohio). The research topic was the separation of nonsteroidalanti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by micellar electrokineticchromatography (MEKC). The goal was to determinewhether software, hardware, and mentoring strategies weresuitable for undergraduate research.

Because of our novel approach we used outcome assess-ment to measure the success of implementing distance un-dergraduate research. A pilot study was evaluated to assessprogress and identify problem areas in order to provide amechanism for revision and improvement for future use at a

distant university. This article describes the approach to dis-tance research, methods of program assessment, and a reportof this program’s outcomes.

Materials and Methods

HazardsTo prevent user contact with the working voltage, the

CE anodic reservoir is placed inside a plexiglass box connectedto the high voltage power supply with an interlock connec-tion. The Web camera is running at all times the student re-searcher is engaged in laboratory work at the distant site. Atthe home site, the camera is in operation in the presence ofother researchers within visual or audio range of the camerasystem to maintain a safe environment at the distant site. Thisuse of a “buddy system” allows research–mentors to respondrapidly in the event of an emergency and provides a mecha-nism for the off-site student–researcher to quickly ask ques-tions related to safety.

ReagentsMesityl oxide (141-79-7), diflunisal (22494-42-4),

flurbiprofen (5104-49-4), ibuprofen (15687-27-1), in-domethacin (53-86-1), indoprofen (31842-01-0), naproxen(22204-53-1), sulindac (38194-50-2), tolmetin (26171-23-3), N-tris(hydroxymethyl)methyl-2-aminoethanesulfonic acid(TES) (7365-44-8), and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) (151-21-3) were obtained from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO).Deionized water was obtained from a Barnstead NanopureInfinity system (Barnstead Thermolyne Corp., Dubuque, IA).All stock solutions were prepared in background electrolyteat 1 mM and stored at –20 oC.

Capillary ElectrophoresisThe CE instruments were built in-house and comprised

a high voltage power supply (CZE1000R, Spellman,Hauppauge, NY), UV–vis absorbance detector (Linear PHD206, or SC100, Thermoquest, Schaumburg, IL), and timed

Real-Time Distance Research with IP NetworkVideoconferencing: Extending UndergraduateResearch Opportunities WLisa A. Holland*

Department of Chemistry, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6045; *Lisa.Holland@mail.wvu.edu

Sara Tomechko,† Alyison M. Leigh, and Anne OommenDepartment of Chemistry, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242

Angela BradfordCollege of Education, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242

Andrew E. BurnsDepartment of Chemistry, Kent State University, Stark Campus, Canton, OH 44720

†Current address: Graduate Program in Chemistry, The OhioState University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Teaching with Technologyedited by

Gabriela C. WeaverPurdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907

Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 81 No. 8 August 2004 • Journal of Chemical Education 1225

pressurized injection systems built in-house (5). Except fordifferences in manufacturing of the detector, systems at thehome-site and off-site laboratories were identical.

Data sets were collected using a multifunction portabledata acquisition card (DAQCard-A1-16XE-50, or PCMIO-XE-50, National Instruments, Austin, TX) and commerciallyavailable software (Igor NIDAQ Tools, Wavemetrics, LakeOswego, OR). Data analysis and representation were accom-plished using commercially available software (Igor Pro v. 4.0,Wavemetrics).

CommunicationThe synchronous videoconferencing was facilitated with

a ViGO Professional appliance (VCON, Austin, TX) con-nected to a full duplex 10 MB Ethernet port. Each systemincorporated a single computer (Solo2500, Pentium III pro-cessor, 600 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 5.6 GB hard drive, Gate-way, Kansas City, MO, or Optiplex GX200 desktop, PentiumIII processor, 866 MHz, 256 MB RDRAM, 10 GB harddrive, Dell Computer Corp., Round Rock, TX) that bothcollected data and launched Internet communication. Thesoftware (Meeting point v. 4.5, VCON and Windows Net-meeting v. 3.01, Microsoft Corporation) allowed real-timevideoconferencing and data sharing.

Assessment and EvaluationOne of the authors (A. B.), an undergraduate student

in the College of Education at Kent State University con-ducted all assessment, comprising interviews, (during Weeks0, 3, 4, and 8), examinations (during Weeks 1, 3, 5, and 8),and daily journal log entries. She was instructed not to com-municate assessment data until completion of the pilotproject, except in instances when the student–researcher’sphysical and emotional well-being was in question. The stu-dent–researcher was made aware of this policy at the onsetof the program. A. B. used an outline of anticipated advancesof the student–researcher as an assessment gauge.W

Results and Discussion

The Research ProjectSeparation in free-zone CE is based on analyte charge-

to-size ratio and the technique is commonly employed forthe analysis of pharmaceutical compounds (6). The researchproject incorporated a lab-built CE instrument to separate aseries of NSAIDs. After assisting in assembly of the instru-ment, the student–researcher used the system for free-zoneanalysis of individual NSAIDs. The purpose of this exercisewas to determine that the instrument was functional and toaid the student–researcher in developing a sound procedurefor routine system operation (capillary conditioning, sampleinjection, optimizing detector parameters, data collection, andanalysis). After the student–researcher became proficient inoperation of the system, the research focused on the separa-tion of a mix of the NSAID standards in the presence of aneutral marker (mesityl oxide). The NSAIDs all possess asingle negative charge at pH 7.0, and have similar charge-to-size ratios, making routine separation difficult using a typi-cal background electrolyte for free-zone CE (25 mM TES,pH 7.0).

Figure 1. Electropherogram of 8 NSAIDs separated by MEKC. Runconditions are detailed below:

• Fused silica capillary 25 mm × 45 cm, 3 mm detec-tion window positioned 35 cm from the anodic endof the capillary, background electrolyte composed of25 mM TES, 20 mM SDS pH 7.0 and sonicated priorto use.

• Separations were performed at 20 kV.

• Injections were performed at 0.34 bar (5 psi) for 1 s.

• Absorbance measurements were made at 206 nm.

• Peaks are labeled as follows: 1 tolmetin, 2 indoprofen,3 naproxen, 4 ibuprofen, 5 flurbiprofen, 6 diflunisal,7 sulindac, 8 indomethacin, 9 sudan III.

• NSAID concentrations for the home site and off-sitedata are: 179 and 136 mM tolmetin, 90 and 45 mMindoprofen, 179 and 136 mM naproxen, 224 and181 mM ibuprofen, 90 and 45 mM flurbiprofen, 90and 45 mM diflunisal, 90 and 45 mM sulindac, 90and 45 mM indomethacin, respectively.

Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources

1226 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 81 No. 8 August 2004 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org

This exercise strengthened the student’s understandingof free-zone CE and provided the impetus necessary to engagethe student–researcher in exploring MEKC. This technique,first reported in 1984 (7), is facilitated by the introductionof surfactant molecules into the background electrolyte thatform micelles above a critical concentration. Negativelycharged micelles of SDS possess a unique migration time re-lated to the micelle charge-to-size-ratio. Select analytes willhave some affinity for the micelles and, in this case, analytetransport is a function of electrophoretic velocity, electroos-motic flow, and the degree of analyte partitioning or associa-tion with the micelles. A primary application of this techniqueis the separation of neutral compounds; however the tech-nique has also been used for improved separation of chargedcompounds (8). When applied to the separation of NSAIDs,MEKC provides baseline resolution of all eight NSAIDs (Fig-ure 1). The results are similar to previous literature reportsof MEKC separations of other NSAID libraries (9–11). Re-tention times in MEKC are susceptible to temperature, ionicstrength, pH, capillary length, inner diameter, and surfacecharacteristics (8). Conditioning of the capillary affects sur-face characteristics and therefore the migration time repro-ducibility. The data acquired off-site and at the home sitewere obtained with the same flushing protocol: 30-min flushwith 0.1 N sodium hydroxide, 15-min flush with deionizedwater, and a 30-min background electrolyte flush. Literaturereports frequently provide varied protocol for capillary con-ditioning. Information on the necessity and effect of flusheshas been reported (12). This study would require further in-vestigation before addressing the debate.

ConsiderationsThe off-site laboratory had adequate space, Internet con-

nections, plumbing and electrical connections; however, thefacility lacked a balance capable of weighing samples to 0.1mg and a suitable deionized water source. The absence ofthese items required the off-site student–researcher to travelto the home site to wash glassware and weigh standards. Al-

though necessary during this pilot study, in practice the useof standards made at two separate sites may lead to some dif-ficulty in replicating data.

Troubleshooting was highly successful using the duplexvideoconferencing—only one incident was not corrected inthis manner and required the home-site mentor to travel tothe off-site laboratory. Misinterpretation of directions givenduring week 5 led to irreproducible data for 1.5 weeks. Thehome-site mentor was unable to identify this problem viathe Web camera during this period and traveled to the dis-tant site to identify the error. It is likely that the problemwould have been resolved by continued use of videoconfer-encing, but traveling to the distant site afforded a muchquicker resolution. Solutions for avoiding such an event inthe future center on experience in communicating tasks tothe off-site researcher and in troubleshooting the problemsmore effectively using the video camera. The frequency ofmiscommunication will decrease as experience in distancementoring increases and with the inclusion of one or moreadditional researchers working in conjunction at the off-sitelaboratory.

Outcome Assessment

To ascertain the success of the program and identify cor-rectable flaws, we used interviews, examinations, and jour-nal logs to determine the student’s progress.W When usedtogether these sources of information about the student fa-cilitated progress assessment without bias caused by differ-ential oral and written communication skills. We evaluatedthese aspects of the pilot program:

1. Student–researcher’s understanding of the researchproject

2. Development of student–researcher’s laboratory skills

3. The level of confidence of the student–researcher

4. The depth of knowledge in the field of chemicalseparations

tnedutSybdepoleveDsllikSyrotarobaL.2elbaTkeeW tnemssessA

muideMtnedutSfotnemeveihcA

rehcraeseR

8–1 yrotarobaLkoobetoN

nikoobetonyrotarobalsdroceRhtiwtnetsisnocrennamaehtnodetsopnoitcurtsni

etisbeWyrotcudortni

2 goLlanruoJ ybgniknihtlacitircsetartsnomeDdabgniyfitnediyltnednepedni

snur

6 goLlanruoJ ylereves(ataddabseifitnedI)semitnoitargimkaepdetfihs

etairporppaehtsenimreteddnahsulfmetsys(noitcafoesruoc

)noitarbiliuqe-erdna

8� yrotarobaLlacitcarP

52.2nilacitcarpbalsetelpmoCrorreenoylnohtiwsruoh

dna4lairetamlatnemelppuS()1elbaTlatnemelppuS

tcejorPhcraeseRehtfonoisneherpmoCtnedutS.1elbaTkeeW tnemssessA

muideMtnedutSfotnemeveihcA

rehcraeseR

1 1maxE stnenopmoclatnemurtsnislebaLedona(semanevitpircsedhtiwcidona,eborplatemsadelebal

)laivtsetdelebalriovreser

3 ,2maxE2weivretnI

erudecorplatnemirepxeseniltuOgnikam,sehsulf(yltcerroc

-ffo,snursuoenatlumis,snoitulosfonosirapmocetis-emohdnaetis

dna,emit,sthgiehkaep)setalplaciteroeht

4 goLlanruoJ rotnemetis-ffoehthtiwtcatnoCssucsidotyadrepeciwtylno

sammelidhcraeser

5 goLlanruoJ tuohtiwstnemirepxesnigeBrotnemehtgnitlusnoc

Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 81 No. 8 August 2004 • Journal of Chemical Education 1227

logs by Week 4. Only one week later (Week 5) the student–researcher began experiments without consulting the mentor,and become proficient enough in the operation of the instru-ment to perform instrumental repairs, thus, providing strongevidence for maturity in comprehension of the research.

Development of laboratory skill by the student–researcherwas demonstrated by the quality of her laboratory notebook,as well as her ability to complete data runs and routine in-strument operation. By the second week of the project, thestudent–researcher demonstrated critical thinking when sheindependently identified bad runs. By the sixth week of theresearch project, the student–researcher was able to identifybad data and to determine the appropriate course of action.At the end of the project the student–researcher identifiedthe NSAID content of three solutions during a lab practical.W

She completed the practical in 2.25 hours with only one error.The student–researcher’s self-confidence was minimal at

the onset of the project. Evidence of this includes her fear ofthe high separation voltage and use of a phrase indicatingdoubt with a correct answer on exam 2. The student–re-searcher expressed comfort in working alone on the instru-ment (Week 3) and hesitant willingness to give a presentationon the research (Week 4). By Weeks 5 and 6 the student madepositive comments related to her ability to complete theproject. By Week 8 (interview 4) the student–researcher rec-ognized a reduced need for mentoring and at project comple-tion noted that nothing about the project was hard.

The student–researcher’s knowledge of the field of capil-lary electrophoresis was first confirmed Week 4 when she de-scribed the instrumentation and principle behind separations(interview 3). This was also demonstrated Week 5 (exam 3).

ECgnitcudnoCnitnedutSfoecnedifnoC.3elbaTkeeW tnemssessA

muideMtnedutSfotnemeveihcA

rehcraeseR

0 1weivretnI hgihehtforaefastropeRECrofdesuegatlov

3 2weivretnI

2maxE

gnikrownitrofmocsesserpxEgnirudtnemurtsniehtnoenola

weivretnignitartsnomedesarhpfoesUnorewsnatcerrochtiwtbuod

I,yhwwonkt’nodI“,maxehtiwodotevahdluowtisseug

”.segrahceht

4 3weivretnI ebtondluowehstahtsetoNagnivigelbatrofmoc

fidluocehstub,noitatneserperaperpotemitdahehs

5 goLlanruoJ elbagniebdoogtlefI“,stropeRylnotI.yrallipacehtegnahcot

dnahctawotsetunim54koot”.petsybpetstaeper

6 goLlanruoJ klatotdaht’nevahI“,stnemmoChcumyrevbalniamehtot

I.yadhtoomsasawtI.yadototsnurs’worromotgnitcepxema

otysaednadoogsatsujeb”.hsinif

7 goLlanruoJ othcumklatt’ndidI“,stnemmoCt’ndidI.yadotbalrehtoeht

dnaodottahwwenkI.otdeenItahwwonkIdnatahtdidI”.worromotenodtegotdeen

8 4weivretnI dnift’ndidehstahtstropeRtsapehttuobadrahgnihtyna

tcejorphcraeser

tnedutS.4elbaT ’ siserohportcelEyrallipaCfoegdelwonKskeeW tnemssessA

muideMtnedutSfotnemeveihcA

rehcraeseR

4 3weivretnI dnatnempiuqesebircseDdnihebelpicnirpsnialpxe

snoitarapes

5 3maxE etylanastciderpyltcerroCsenifeddnanoitargim

tropsnartetylanafosmsinahcemECni

8 4maxE ellecima…“,sellecimsebircseDtnatcafrusstiesuacebdetaercsi

adnacilihpordyhasahhcihw]cis[sdnecibohpordyhsihT…serehpsmrofotpuenil

ehtfogninoititrapswolla”.sDIASN

8 4weivretnI rofecnereferpstropeRtuobanoitamrofnidnuorgkcab

ebotsnoitarapeslacimehcevitcaretninahguorhtdedivorpbeWehtotdesopposaerutcel

etis

The undergraduate student initially possessed limitedknowledge in post-secondary level chemistry topics, with onlytwo semesters of freshman chemistry completed, no previ-ous laboratory research experience, and minimal computerexpertise. At the onset of this pilot distance research program,the student–researcher’s abilities in all four categories wereminimal. For example, the student required constant instruc-tion from the home site, did not problem solve, and con-veyed basic information about the technique in an unrefinedmanner. Culminating events included the student’s ability toindependently interpret data and determine a course ofaction. Improvement in each category, described in Tables1–4, is discussed in detail below.

The student–researcher’s comprehension of the researchproject was initially demonstrated Week 1, during exam 1, asunrefined conceptual knowledge of the instrumentation,where components were labeled with descriptive names. ByWeek 3, the student–researcher correctly outlined experimen-tal procedure both on an examination and during an inter-view. Improved comprehension of the research reduced theneed for constant mentoring, which was indicated in journal

Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources

1228 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 81 No. 8 August 2004 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org

By the fourth written exam (Week 8), her answers were ma-ture. Improvements in basic knowledge of capillary electro-phoresis were apparent, but appropriately limited to areas shewas directly involved in (free-zone capillary electrophoresis,MEKC). Continuation of the research project would likelyfoster curiosity in other areas such as affinity CE, capillarygel electrophoresis, or chip-based electrophoresis systems.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The data collected from this undergraduate researchproject demonstrate that it is feasible to engage undergradu-ates using Internet-based synchronous video communication.Our interest in distance research results from the desire tocollaborate with other research sites. By removing distancebarriers, this approach increases the accessibility of knowledge.

Acknowledgments

This material is based on work supported by the NationalScience Foundation under grants number CHE0094121 andCHE0097538. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. generously provideda Linear 206 PHD detector. We gratefully acknowledge fundsprovided by Kent State University through cost sharing.

WSupplemental Material

A document providing an activity synopsis for this re-search project, as well as interview questions, a summary of

journal entries, and exam questions is available in this issueof JCE Online.

Note

1. Information on micro separation is available at this Website: http://www.as.wvu.edu/~lholland (accessed Feb 2004).

Literature Cited

1. Strode, S. W.; Gustke, S.; Allen, A. JAMA 1999, 281, 1066–1068.

2. Teasley, S.; Wolinsky, S. Science 2001, 292, 2254–2255.3. Kling, J. Anal. Chem. 1998, 70, 729A–732A.4. Wulf, W. A. Science 1993, 261, 854–855.5. Holland, L. A.; Lunte, S. M., Anal. Chem. 1999, 71, 407–

412.6. Holland, L. A.; Chetwyn, N. P.; Perkins, M. D.; Lunte, S. M.

Pharm. Res. 1997, 14, 372–387.7. Terabe, S.; Otsuka, K.; Ichikawa, K.; Tsuchiya, A.; Ando, T.

Anal. Chem. 1984, 56, 111–113.8. Nishi, H.; Terabe, S. J. Chromatogr. A 1996, 735, 3–27.9. Maboundou, C. W.; Paintaud, G.; Berard, M.; Bechtel,

P. R. J. Chromatogr., B: Biomed. Appl. 1994, 657, 173–183.10. Donato, M. G.; van den Eeckhout, E.; van den Bossche, W.;

Sandra, P. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 1993, 11, 197–201.11. Weinberger, R.; Albin, M. J. Liq. Chrom. 1991, 14, 953–972.12. Kaupp, S.; Bubert, H.; Baur, L.; Nelson, G.; Wätzig, H. J.

Chromatogr. A. 2000, 894, 73–77.