The Riva Renaissance: Icons of Analytical Innovation — Carlo Bicchi (Part Two)

Chiara Cordero: Your “field incursions” to capture volatiles from living plants or monitor industrial processes have become almost legendary. What does one learn when analysis is taken outside the controlled laboratory?

Carlo Bicchi: For me, trained as what one might call a “conventional” chemist, the study of plants in the field became fundamental in the early 1980s, when I began to grasp the Darwinian concept of environment as a portion of space in which animal and plant species coexist and co-evolve through mutual interaction.

It became clear that the emission of volatile compounds by a plant, today synthesised under the acronym BVOCs, always carries a phenomenological meaning. Depending on their molecular structure, these compounds “communicate” different biological messages. In essence, I entered the world of ecological biochemistry as so clearly defined by Jeffrey Harborne.

Transferring analytical techniques from laboratory to field obliges one to become genuinely multi-tasking. A simple example may illustrate this. In a NATO-sponsored research project in the early 1980s, conducted with Pat Sandra and a very young Frank David, we/I had to face a series of uncommon problems, I mean i) to develop thick-film fused silica microtraps (over 100 μm), operating in sorption rather than adsorption, which was the norm at the time, ii) to devise a double immobilisation strategy to stabilise the coating film, iii) to learn to use the first dimension of H/C-MDGC as an injector for the analytical column in the second dimension, iv) to design an inert glass enclosure to generate a measurable headspace volume, v) to implement rapid sampling procedures to avoid altering the microclimate within the enclosure, and vi) to carefully tune sampling volumes to prevent volatile breakthrough.

Today, these considerations may appear routine. Forty-five years ago, they were anything but.

CC: How important is it for an analyst to understand the biological or industrial process, not merely the instrument?

CB: Technical knowledge alone, even when profound, is insufficient. In biological or industrial contexts, the analytical technique serves to generate data, but those data must ultimately contribute to understanding a biological phenomenon or validating an industrial process through chemical parameters.

One must be inside the problem. Only with a synergistic interaction with domain experts, biologists, technologists, process engineers, can the analytical chemist correctly interpret the chemical result and identify, and where necessary quantify, the diagnostic chemical targets relevant to the system under study. Without this integration, analysis risks becoming sterile.

CC: Is that where a true analytical school is formed?

CB: It is there that one learns to approach chemical analysis with seriousness and rigour. Interpretation must be guided by strict parameters from which one cannot deviate. These principles, once internalised, must be transmitted to younger colleagues.

If one is fortunate, as I have been, those younger researchers will go on to achieve results far beyond one’s own. That is their merit. But they must depart from a solid foundation.

My concept of a “school” may appear somewhat old-fashioned. I have always believed that transmitting knowledge to subsequent generations must serve as a factor of intellectual freedom: freedom to decide consciously whether to pursue continuity or change. Young researchers should be placed early in the front line. The role of the senior scientist is not to dominate, but to make experience available critically, helping to avoid unproductive distortions while leaving room for independence.

CC: We are witnessing a revival of technologies such as SFC and GC–IR, now with performances unimaginable twenty years ago. Does this cyclicality surprise you?

CB: Not at all. To me it simply indicates that the original idea was sound, but either the analytical community was too conservative to appreciate it, or the supporting technology was not yet sufficiently mature.

“Technologies that Return: SFC, GC–IR and the Cyclic Nature of Innovation.
Many techniques explored decades ago are re-emerging today with vastly improved technological platforms. Innovation often advances more rapidly than the culture required to absorb it”

My belief in techniques such as SFC or GC–FT–IR was never fideistic. It arose from study and conviction that, for certain problems, they could be complementary to, or even more effective than, established methods, such as SFC–UV compared with HPLC–UV, or GC–FT–IR compared with GC–MS.

CC: In the past, some techniques were conceptually advanced, yet manufacturing was not ready to sustain them. What have we learned from that experience?

CB: I recall the initial resistance faced by John Fenn with electrospray ionization. I knew him moderately well in the early 1980s. At one conference we spent an afternoon discussing precisely this issue: the courage to succeed, or to fail, consciously.

This applies not only to Academia but equally to industrial and technical management. A new technique, I stress, a technique, not merely a new instrument, requires time to mature. It demands investment, development, and patience. Unfortunately, the contemporary logic of immediate profitability does not encourage long-term technological cultivation.

CC: Is the situation different today? Is industry better aligned with instrumental innovation?

CB: YES and NO.

YES, because innovation is indispensable in a competitive industrial environment and among instrument manufacturers.

NO, because short-term economic pressure and cost reduction policies make the adoption of new techniques a demanding investment, particularly in terms of personnel training. Learning requires time.

GC–FT–IR, for instance, was never fundamentally questioned in terms of validity. Its limited early success stemmed from insufficient appreciation of its potential and from the small number of installed instruments, which discouraged further investment.

I foresee certain challenges for separation techniques in routine control laboratories, given the growing tendency to develop rapid, non-separative approaches enabled by advanced spectroscopy and powerful data-processing software. However, I disagree with the view that separation will gradually become irrelevant. In my opinion, understanding any process requires knowledge of its chemical composition.

CC: Modern analytical platforms offer more solutions than many industrial laboratories can realistically implement. Is this maturity or misalignment?

CB: The answer is not simple. The guiding principle remains: the technique to be adopted is the one that resolves the problem, exhaustively, if possible, providing the maximum amount of information, including information not apparently required at first glance.

In that sense, the proliferation of solutions indicates maturity. However, a misalignment exists. Industrial laboratories, unless compelled by regulatory necessity, cannot continuously adapt economically or in terms of training. This creates a gap between available analytical possibilities and those realistically implementable.

I am a supporter of top-down strategies, borrowing the concept from omics sciences. An unprecedented problem should first be addressed using the most advanced instrumentation available. Subsequently, with equal rigour, one seeks to simplify the solution in terms of instrumental complexity and analysis time, making it suitable for industrial routine. I have applied this approach successfully in several industrial contexts.

CC: Does academic research risk becoming enslaved to technological innovation?

CB: The risk exists. One must not confuse the capacity to generate data with the resolution of complex problems. A datum is not a result.

A result arises from understanding the problem, defining a strategy, developing a method, applying it, and critically interpreting the data, even when the conclusion is negative.

The researcher must use technological innovation, not adopt it uncritically. At the same time, one must demonstrate its genuine advantage over existing approaches and show that it opens new, meaningful horizons. This requires serious investment in education, particularly for younger generations.

CC: How can we bridge the gap between technological development and real-world application?

CB: Technological development and automation of repetitive operations are essential. Yet they risk becoming self-referential if disconnected from real analytical needs.

This widening gap can be mitigated through substantial investment in operator knowledge. Personnel must be able to evaluate critically the practical impact of new or updated technologies.

In sufficiently large laboratories, especially those dealing with diverse analytical tasks, the presence of a scientifically trained figure, ideally a PhD in analytical sciences, who understands both the industrial core business and laboratory operations could provide strategic oversight. Such a person could critically monitor technological evolution and recommend adoption only when tangible benefits are evident. I am aware of at least one case where this model functions extremely well.

CC: Educating the Next Generation: What should we teach young analysts today: how to use instruments or how to understand principles?

CB: I have no hesitation: principles first. Instrumental proficiency is essential, but without understanding, the instrument guides you rather than the other way around.

Proper technique can be learned. Conceptual foundations must be internalised.

CC: In a context dominated by software, automation and artificial intelligence, what competence must not be lost?

CB: The fundamental principles that shaped my generation remain valid. Software, automation and artificial intelligence are tools. Personal knowledge, intellectual openness, critical judgement and evaluative capacity must be cultivated from the earliest stages of scientific formation.

CC: How does one build an analytical “school” today?

CB: In my opinion, perhaps reflecting a somewhat old-fashioned view, a school forms around one or a few individuals able to articulate a broad vision, capable of evolving over time, not merely “yes-people”. However, it can endure only if surrounded by collaborators who are intellectually active, willing to debate and to challenge. A school does not grow on compliance, but on constructive confrontation.

Clear objectives are necessary, but so is an environment where independence and rigour coexist. Continuity does not arise from rigid positions, but from a vision strong enough to be tested and sufficiently open to develop. That, in my experience, is how a scientific vision truly endures.

CC: Riva del Garda as a Symbolic Place and Riva del Garda has a strong history in capillary chromatography. Can it still serve as a symbolic place for methodological reflection in analytical science?

CB: I cannot claim objectivity. I have attended Riva meetings since the first one in 1983, following Hindelang. For me, Riva has always been the forum where one submits oneself to the critical scrutiny of leaders in separation science, presenting results achieved over the preceding years and testing their prospective value.

More importantly, despite financial constraints, I always brought young collaborators with me. I asked them to return not merely with proceedings, but with ideas, knowledge, perhaps collaborations.

Most of them returned convinced that they belonged to the international separation science community. That was the true result. Regardless of where artificial intelligence may lead us, reflection is generated by people together. Machines may implement; they do not deliberate.

CC: What should a young researcher take home after attending such a meeting?

CB: They should attend as many oral and poster sessions as possible, searching for something to adapt, improve, or reinterpret in their own work. They should listen to established researchers to broaden perspective, and exchange experiences with peers to appreciate the complexity of a research career.

CC: If you had to convey a “lesson” at Riva del Garda, what would it be?

If I had to convey a lesson at Riva del Garda, I would speak, perhaps a little unfashionably, about the indispensable role of intellect, imagination and doubt. In a period characterised by highly sophisticated instrumentation and powerful analytical platforms, there is a risk of confusing technical refinement with genuine understanding. Scientific progress does not derive from technology alone; it depends on the disciplined exercise of critical thinking, supported by passion and a certain degree of imagination. Without these elements, even the most advanced laboratory may become intellectually passive.

Bertolt Brecht, in his Lob des Zweifels, writes:

“Zweifle an dem, der dir sagt, er habe recht.

Zweifle auch an dir selbst.

Und prüfe, was du gelernt hast.”

(“Doubt the one who tells you he is right. Doubt yourself as well. And examine what you have learned.”)

This is not an invitation to sterile scepticism, but to intellectual responsibility. Doubt obliges us to verify assumptions, to challenge interpretations, and to ensure that our conclusions are solidly grounded in evidence and sound reasoning.

In this perspective, Riva del Garda should not only transmit content, but provide the appropriate context in which ideas can be examined rigorously. Its real value lies in stimulating discussion and encouraging younger researchers to cultivate an independent and critical vision of their work.

Carlo Bicchi has been Full Professor of Pharmaceutical Biology at the University of Turin since 1990. In the same University, he was Director of the Department of Scienza e Tecnologia del Farmaco and Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy. Main field of research: development of capillary GC and GC-MS and analytical technologies mainly focused on biologically active specialized metabolites in vegetable matrices (mainly essential oils, and plant volatiles) and aroma profiling and fingerprinting of important industrial food crops (coffee, cocoa, hazelnuts, olive oil and tea). Main topics: Sample preparation; capillary-GC and GC-MS, Fast-GC, GC-GC and GCxGC, Enantioselective GC, HPLC and HPLC-MS, SFE and SFC. Data handling: chemometric methods for volatilomics and sensomics.

Chiara Cordero is Full Professor of Food Chemistry at the Department of Drug Science and Technology, University of Turin (Italy). Her research focuses on the development and optimization of comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) platforms for food-omics, including profiling and fingerprinting, advanced data processing strategies, and the identification of food quality and dietary intake markers through metabolomics and volatilomics within nutrimetabolomics. She also develops miniaturized, automated, solvent-free sample preparation methods for sensomic analysis. Her work has received international recognition, including the Leslie S. Ettre Award (2008), the John B. Phillips Award (2014), inclusion in The Analytical Scientist Power List (2016, 2025), the Scientific Achievement Award in GC×GC (2022), and the Giovanni Dugo Medal (2024).

Further Information
The 44^th international Symposium on Capillary Chromatography (ISCC) and 21^st GC x GC Symposium takes place from May 17–22 2026 at the Conference Centre, Riva Del Garda, Italy. For more information on the scientific programme and conference events, please go to: https://iscc44.chromaleont.it/