Online collaboration is a vital 21st-century technology skill. So how can online collaboration be incorporated into general chemistry? We are using Google Drive spreadsheets and forms to develop online collaboration skills in students. The forms capability allows easy collection of data for class comparison and student feedback. The information collected in a spreadsheet can be projected for class discussion, or can easily be downloaded and analyzed in Excel. This is an effective way to gather class statistics on experimental data. We have started to use the Google chat feature to promote discussion in the laboratory of class data, such as looking for uniformity in data or analyzing errors across groups. This is done by posting a link to the form to enter data for student groups and then the link to the spreadsheet of data (which only instructors can edit) and having students open it in the lab. With multiple openings the chat feature is enabled. Any discussion is anonymous unless students or lab groups identify themselves (students are not signed into Google Drive). These mock online collaborations are a valuable start and demonstrate the ease and power of the technology. Collaborative group projects or reports are a logical next step, which would require students to have a Google account.

Thirty-one samples of cheese obtained from retail outlets were analyzed for histamine, using an official AOAC fluorometric method. The types of cheese analyzed and the ranges of histamine found were: colby, 0.3—2.8; camembert, 0 . 4 - 4 . 2 ; cheddar, 1.2-5.8; gouda, 1.3-2.4; provolone, 2.0-23.5; roquefort, 1.0-16.8; mozzarella 1.6-5.0; and Swiss, 0.4—250 mg histamine/ 100 g. Ten of the 12 samples of swiss cheese contained < 1 6 mg histamine/100 g. The remaining 2 samples which contained 116 and 250 mg histamine/lOO g were judged organoleptically to be of poor quality. An investigation of one processing facility showed that the production of histamine in swiss cheese may have been a result of a hydrogen peroxide/ low temperature treatment of the milk supply. Recovery of histamine added to methanol extracts of cheese ranged from 93 to 105%. Histamine content was confirmed by high pressure liquid chromatographic analysis of the methanol extracts.

A collaborative study on the determination of indole in shrimp was conducted in which a high pressure liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method and a spectrofluorometric method were compared with the AOAC gas-liquid chromatographic (GLC) method (18.075–18.078,13th ed.). In the HPLC method, 10 g shrimp was blended with methanol, an internal standard was added, and the extract was filtered. Indole was separated on an octadecylsilane reverse phase column, using 60% MeOH-H2O, and quantitated with a fluorescence detector (excitation 280 nm, emission 330 nm) by comparing the indole peak height with that of an internal standard, 2-methylindole. Recoveries at a 25 μg/100 g level averaged 104% with a range of 90–127%, and at a level of 35 μg/100 g averaged 102% with a range of 93–112%. In the spectrofluorometric method, 25 g shrimp was extracted with 2% EtOAc-hexane. After several washes, indole was partitioned into a saturated NaCl-MeOH solution and its fluorescence was measured (excitation 280 nm, emission 332 nm). Recoveries at a 25 μg/100 g level averaged 93% with a range of 0–255% and at a level of 35 μg/100 g averaged 64% with a range of 0–107%. Recoveries obtained by the AOAC-GLC method at a level of 25 μg/100 g averaged 96% with a range of 81–116% and at a level of 35 μg/100 g averaged 101% with a range of 81–119%. The coefficients of variation were 20,10, and 64% at a 25 μg/100 g level for the GLC method, the HPLC method, and the spectrofluorometric method, respectively. The HPLC method was adopted as official first action for indole levels in shrimp exceeding 1 μg/100 g.

In an ultraviolet detection procedure, indole was extracted from shrimp by blending with carbonate buffer and then partitioned into ethyl acetate. Before quantitation by high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC), interferences were removed by the use of a polyamide cleanup column. Concentrated column effluent was injected into the chromatograph. Indole was detected by monitoring absorbance at 217 nm and quantitated by comparison of indole peak height to that of an internal standard, 2-methylindole. Recoveries of indole ranged from 72 to 117%. Results agreed well with those by the official AOAC gasliquid chromatographic (GLC) method.