Author Archives: gaussling

About gaussling

Gaussling is a senior scientist in the chemical business. He occasionally breaks glassware, spreads confusion and has been known to generate new forms of hazardous waste. Gaussling also digs aerospace, geology, and community theatre.

The Chemical Entrepreneur, Part 3.

In previous posts I have written about aspects of starting and running a chemical business.  I do not pretend to cover all views on this matter. It has been my experience that entrepreneurs and inventors are a thick-headed lot who often see the world through colored and distorted optics. To such folk I can only offer this- Cash flow is life. Have something to sell right away if not sooner.

For everyone else, a chemical business can take many forms. Choose your business model carefully. Here are some examples of general business models-

  1. Distribution or catalog model.  Buy in bulk or semi-bulk and repackage for resale. This ranges from specialties to commodities. Selling samples means that you can sell under the R&D exemption under TSCA. You may have noticed that R&D quantities from supply houses are almost always labeled with “R&D Only.” This means that the sample is exempt from TSCA regulation.
  2. Formulation.  Buy raw materials and blend to produce your products. Sell your own brand or under a customer’s brand. This is often the world of commodities.
  3. Tolling business.  A toller is a processor for hire. A toller takes a customer’s raw materials and processes them in a specified manner to produce a product. In tolling, the operator agrees to produce to a specification and yield agreed to by contract.
  4. Commodity scale production.  Process raw materials to produce a product that competes with other manufacturers of the product. Commodity buying decisions are made on the basis of price and contractual terms. it is commonly a high volume, low unit margin operation. Products pricing typically very sensitive to raw material costs.
  5. Pharmaceutical manufacture. Highly specialized and capital intensive.  Specialized skill sets are required.  Cash needed for long dry spells during development. Expect to turn over control to VC’s sooner than later. This is the realm of VC/Esq/MD/PhD/MBA’s- an especially loathsome combination of buggering pencil-necks.  I would rather roll naked in broken glass wetted down with Tabasco than try starting a pharmaceutical business, but that is just my own bias.
  6. Specialty/custom synthesis.  Manufacture custom chemicals for customers who will use them in their own process. This is usually done under a secrecy agreement on a spot basis or under contract.  Specialty products may be from the public domain or may be the result of proprietary processing. They are “specialty” because they are low demand, require specialized skills, have particular specs, or are below the radar screen of other manufacturers. This kind of production may take you into the EPA TSCA regulatory realm, depending on the end use of the substances. TSCA space is a murky space where you’ll likely need a full-time regulatory staff of specialists. This kind of regulatory compliance can dramatically extend lead times for delivery.
  7. Hybrid catalog/specialty/custom.  Aldrich Chemical started in this category. They were a catalog operation that was highly opportunistic. The hoods and kilo labs that filled their catalog collection could also be used to do custom or specialty manufacture.  Alfred Bader’s great strength as an entrepreneur was his total commitment to getting the customer what they wanted.  Bader’s method was to find out what chemists wanted and make it available to them.  The secret to the catalog business is variety. Grow the collection and raise prices 5 % every year.
  8. Analytical services.  Analysis work doing water, soil, fly ash, mineral, elemental, concrete, feed, fuel samples etc.  You need to have approved methods and certifications to sign off on many analyses.  In this business, you must keep the instruments going night and day to the greatest extent possible. The good news is that advanced degrees are not often needed and fresh college grads often flock to this kind of work. Turnover may be high, though. Not everyone takes to analytical work.

I have had numerous opportunities to speak with chemists, often chemistry professors or university tech transfer folks, about their interest in commercializing an invention or exploiting an opportunity. Many of the ideas have related to reagents and catalysts. Professor X has developed a catalyst that performs some transformation in a unique manner and the prof is naturally interested in the commercial possibilities.  Prof X has filed a patent application through the university tech transfer office.

Let’s say that Prof X has a new late transition metal complex that, say, performs some transformation. The professor has a good patent attorney so the composition of matter of the catalyst is claimed bearing mono and bidentate pnictogen ligands with C1-C30 alkyl, aryl, alkylaryl, arylalkyl, fluorinated alkyl, fluorinated aryl, alkylsiloxanes, arylsiloxanes, and on and on. Multi-dimensional Markush ligand space is claimed as well as a whole universe of chiral variants. Prof X has also claimed methods of catalyst preparation as well.

Here is what Prof X controls. Nothing.  If Prof X is the inventor but not the assignee, then Prof X has turned over control of the invention to the University as is often the case.  Maybe the good Prof gets royalties personally or for the Prof’s research.  This depends entirely on what Prof X had negotiated with the university.  Some universities make a lot of royalty money from the patent portfolio. A great many do not.

Starting a business based on a transformation using patented compositions or processes can be a tough sell.  For established products, you have to convince a customer why they should take their lined-out process and change it. Even worse, and this is a common deal killer, your customer’s customer may require lengthy and expensive validation.  And, you need a good answer to the question the end user will ask- What kind of price can we expect as a result of this change?  Better to supply product or technology during the development stage when changes are not so problematic.

The other big negative to selling proprietary reagents or processes is negotiating the terms and pricing.  From the customers perspective, adopting your composition or process means that smack in the middle of their process train they have to manage a licensed technology with extra paper work and auditing.  This is a big problem with catalysts. Many of the newer catalysts you see in the Aldrich or Strem catalogs are proprietary and must be used under a license agreement.  Nothing stirs the creative juices like the desire to avoid paying royalties by finding white space in a patent or inventing a new process.

Having been involved in such license negotiations, I can say that you need to have a lawyer looking over your shoulder while you consider the terms and conditions. These agreements often entail upfront fees and a sliding scale of pricing based on usage.  Some IP owners want a piece of your gross product sales resulting from the use of their technology. An annual audit may be expected as well.  It’s like having raccoons in your picnic basket.

Instead of trying to convince the world that your reagent, catalyst, or additive is worth adopting, why not find a product that your technology enables?  When you manufacture and ship a product, you can earn profits on the mass produced.  You can use your technology to produce a portfolio of fine or custom products.  Better yet, why not just find out what customers want. You have 110 or more years of public domain chemistry available to you in Chemical Abstracts there for the taking. Maybe you can even sell some of your composition to customers for their development work.

If you have no interest or capital for starting a commodity production facility, then you have to consider the other end of the spectrum- low volume, high margin specialty or fine chemicals. But how do you find products?  Well, that is a problem. For the rank outsider, getting a clue as to what the market is about can be difficult. Commerce specifics in specialties or custom chemicals are usually confidential information.

An important consideration for the entrepreneur is to focus on your strengths and knowledge of the markets in your area of specialty.  Low volume, high value products require smaller equipment and accordingly, smaller entry costs.  I would encourage someone who wants to start up a synthesis business to avoid the one-act pony scenario.  There is strength in having a diverse collection of product offerings. Multiple products and multiple customers bring greater stability.  Your synthesis business should be a 3-ring circus of multiple simultaneous performances to a diverse audience.

In regard to products to start with, phone or visit purchasing managers to make an introduction and talk about your capabilities. Walk a trade show like Informex or ChemSpec to get an idea of what the market is doing. Many purchasing managers at chemical companies have a list of troublesome compounds they are trying to source. Keep your processes as close to earth, air, fire, and water as possible and try to keep your vessels full, even if the margins are low.  It is important to have some good history with customers.

There is more to life than pharmaceuticals. It is possible to have a productive life entirely outside of medicinal chemistry. Consider CVD or organic semiconductor chemicals.  This field is famous for stringent purity specs. But often the users do their own polishing.

Read patents from 20 years ago to see what technology is coming into the public domain. Scan recent patents in the USPTO’s Patent Gazette to see what potential customers are doing. Often, reactions in the specification are not claimed in the patent. Who knows, the procedure may actually work.

Search the USPTO for key words relating to chemistry you want to do. You’ll find assignees who represent potential customers. Maybe they’re looking for someone to take over preparation of materials related to their technology.  Just because a chemical company patents a composition or process doesn’t mean that they want to practice it. They just want to control it.   Look around.

Related Posts-

Rethinking Start-Up Opportunities

Ways to be an Entrepreneur

US Chemical Business Innovation

Start-Up Failures

A Few Hints on Starting a Chemical Business

Andy Grove on Scale-Up

The Chemical Entrepreneur, Part 1.

The Chemical Entrepreneur, Part 2.

The Chemical Entrepreneur, Part 2.5

Gluten harvest underway

The annual gluten harvest is underway in northern Colorado.  Winter wheat planted last autumn has pushed through the soil, grown to produce a head of grains on every stalk, and finally, transitioned from a sea of lush green grass to the now dessicated amber waves of grain. Giant harvesting machines are cutting the short-statured hybrid crop and somehow rattling it into chaff and grain.

Now that we are avoiding gluten in our household, I view the wheat harvest a little differently. It is somebody else’s harvest.  It’s odd way to look at it I suppose.

Smokey Mountains of Colorado

Last evening the layers of mountain valleys to the west and north were filled with smoke from the High Park fire west of Ft Collins, Colorado. The valleys full of haze reminded me of the Smokey Mountains of Kentucky in the evening.

The fire is 25 miles as the crow flies from my house. The prevailing winds have been highly variable, but the recent front that passed through caused the smoke to blow towards my home town over the weekend. The air is usually clear enough to see Pikes Peak 100 miles to the south. But of late the visibility and air quality has been quite poor.

Colorado has seen waves of growth over the years, much of it along the I-25 corridor and the major east/west routes through the mountains. A common aspiration here is to have a home in the mountains. The housing boom of the last 20 years lead to the spread of MacMansions perched on mountain tops and slopes. Buyers with enough wealth or credit were able to pay the high expense of building a dream home in a remote location and pay for drilling a well in hard rock and running a long powerline up to the site.

What we are seeing is the negative side of having a home in the forest- crown fires that burst through the forest at speeds that surprise everyone. The thermal emissivity of a stand of flaming pine trees is quite high, first dessicating adjoining trees then heating the pine resins to the ignition point either by radiant energy, flame impingement, or by the spread of embers.

A major worry for the High Park fire in particular is the effect on rivers and municipal drinking water reservoirs by rain and snow runoff from the burned ground.  A smokey flavor is desirable for a barbeque sauce but not for tapwater.

This fire seems to be headed for the number one forest fire in Colorado history. Time will tell.

Microscopic Printing on Aldrich Chemical Labels

OK. I’m going to have to be the bad guy and take Aldrich (SAFC) to task on their labeling. I recently received a 100 mL bottle of 10.0 M BuLi in hexanes.  As I looked around for the concentration, I found it written in tiny print away from the name and part number which were written in larger print.  I have placed a ruler next to the label in the photo below to show the size of the print. It is the same size as the date on a penny.

Labels do not “just happen”. Someone has to design a label. This involves arranging content on a limited space while meeting internal and external requirments for safety statements and other content.  Labels do not fall from the sky in great sticky sheafs. Someone prints them. And that someone assigns font sizes and space for the information. So, someone has caused the font size to be tiny irrespective of the print content. I have numerous bottles with microscopic printing and vast expanses of white space. This smells of automation.

I’ll wager that there is an automated label generator that takes product label data and prints it onto the label irrespective of the actual need for microscopic font size. I can envisage a giant warehouse with automated shelf pickers whizzing about pulling bottles off the milti-tiered stacks and placing them into plastic tubs which course their way to shipping. Elsewhere in this voluminous interior is a widget that prints the labels and sticks them onto the bottle after they are filled.  Somewhere a human is pushing a broom.

C’mon Aldrich! Make your labels more legible. Good gravy. What would Bader say? I’m sure your accounting office has no trouble reading the print on the checks that arrive to pay for these products.  Consider that you’ve been put on notice.

Fine print on Aldrich reagent bottle. Molarity is printed in 1.0 mm font size.

ChemSpider Magic with LASSO

Of late I have been concerned with R&D information and various homebrew means of storing it and retrieving it. Institutionalizing R&D results into easily accessed knowledge can roll into a real hairball if you’re not careful. More on that another time.

My adventures with CHETAH 9.0 have caused me to look deeply into SMILES strings and what utility might be found there. This lead me to rediscover ChemSpider and the many services it provides for free to the user.

Consider the following: if you generate a SMILES structure of acetylsalicylic acid, say, from Chemdraw, O=C(O)C1=C(OC(C)=O)C=CC=C1, and use this character string as a search term in ChemSpider, it will take you to the entry for aspirin. What you get is a treasure trove of information on this substance. Go to ChemSpider, cut and paste the above SMILES string into the search box, and let her rip. I’m not your Momma. Just try it.

The breadth of references is encyclopedic.  But the truly amazing part is found when you scroll to the end of the page. There is a drop down window for SimBioSys LASSO. ChemSpider is working to provide LASSO data on its large database of compounds.  LASSO generates a structure and grinds it through a neural net processor module and produces a score between zero and one. The closer the score is to 1.00, the greater the surface conformity or compatibility of the ligand to a target receptor site.  As you would expect, there is a high score associated with aspirin and the COX-1 receptor. From what I can tell, the software is self-learning in some fashion.

The uses are many. Substances can be screened for drug-like attributes within the 40 receptor types provided.  I would like to hear from someone who might have something to say about the use of LASSO for the estimation of possible toxic effects of substances that have not been biologically tested. I fully realize the hazards of this, but perhaps LASSO scores might help flag particular substances for closer examination by testing.

Adrift in Cheminformatics Space. CHETAH 9.0 Fails with Some ChemSketch SMILES Strings.

The ASTM software Chemical Thermodynamic and Energy Release version 9.0, CHETAH 9.0, has many useful features for calculating thermodynamic values of substances.  My interest is in the (gas phase) calculation of ΔHf, limiting oxygen concentration, lower flammability level, Cp, entropy, ΔG, maximum heat of decomposition, net plosive density, ΔHc, and minimum ignition energy. The package claims to have the largest known database of Bensen group values at 965 entries.

I would have supplied links but the WordPress Editor is on the fritz. One more bloody software “issue”. – ‘th Gaussling

I recently upgraded from CHETAH 8.0 to 9.0 because 8.0 is incompatible with Windows 7.  These upgrades are a kilobuck a pop so they can be a budgetary surprise. After I upgraded I noted that 9.0 is not compatible with Windows 7 either!! Luckily I have a couple of lab computers that are still XP systems and therefore compatible with 9.0.  The folks at the University of South Alabama write and support CHETAH.

I understand from private communication that CHETAH 10.0 is in the works in anticipation of the release of Windows 8. Oh joy. I hope that some effort will be put into the user interface and general robustness. My question is this- what about those of us who will be using Windows 7 for the next few years? Will rev 10.0 be compatible? Will it have click and drag features or more of a DOS accent like the current rev?

One of the features that is nice about CHETAH is that it accepts SMILES strings as data input.  It parses the string into known Benson groups and flags unknown groups.  Previously I had been entering smiles strings from ChemDraw 7.0, an ancient but still useful version. Lately I have been evaluating ChemSketch freeware.  And lucky for me, I found another hole to stumble into.

SMILES is not inflexible in its syntax, apparently.  ChemDraw will convert a structure to a SMILES string that is different in its sequence from the identical structure drawn by ChemSketch.  I have found that CHETAH 9.0 will consistently accept SMILEs string entries from ChemDraw, but with only some ChemSketch SMILES strings.

Consider the following SMILES strings of the same structure-  5-Bromo-7-tert-butoxy-3-methyl-3H-isobenzofuran-1-one. The nomenclature is from Chemdraw. I do not use this compound- I dreamed it up as an example.

ChemDraw 7.0–  O=C2OC(C)C1=CC(Br)=CC(OC(C)(C)C)=C12

ChemSketch 12–  CC(C)(C)Oc1cc(Br)cc2c1C(=O)OC2C

The ChemDraw SMILES string is accepted by CHETAH 9.0 and parsed into Benson groups, but when you attempt to process the data it gives a “Run-time error 9” warning and then closes the program. From what I can tell, CHETAH 9.0 will only accept 9 Benson groups because when you clip off functional groups, it will accept the string for the next step. However, it still shuts down and indicates another error saying “subscript out of range”. I don’t know why this happens and the handbook does bnot seem to list errors. The programmer put the error routines in the program, but I guess was too busy to tell anyone what they mean.

The ChemSketch SMILES string above is not accepted at all.

I cannot justify switching to ChemSketch for several reasons and this is one of them.  The ChemSketch editor is generally balky compared to the smooth operation of ChemDraw. However, I must say that ChemSketch is very feature rich and has gotten much better. If I wasn’t already committed to ChemDraw (and Chem3D) I’d strongly consider it.

CHETAH seems to have limitations on the number of Benson groups it will accept for a molecule. It seems to require a particular edition of SMILES syntax. And, the user interface is is balky and antiquated.  I’ll try to uninstall CHETAH and reinstall it. That said, it still seems … brittle.

From what I can piece together by googling SMILES, the system has been evolving. Apparently, chemical graphics software out there has captured particular editions of SMILES at the time when their revision is released.  It would be nice if some international standard were in place to devise an enduring syntactical structure. Seems like something CAS could help with.

CT Scans. Who is monitoring a patient’s radiation dose?

The matter of medical x-radiation dosing is surfacing again. I wrote a post about this in 2009.

Let’s get to the core of the matter. Physicians need to take charge of this since only they have any real control. It’s a pretty goddamned simple concept. Doc’s who are calling for x-ray’s need to begin recording calculated dosing from this hazardous energy. If it is too troublesome for them, then the x-ray techs should record the information.

CT scanning seems to be problematic. There is no business incentive to hold back on CT use in for-profit settings. I suppose that documentation would only reveal the extent and magnitude of x-ray use. It would be fodder for malpractice law firms.

I can just see the billboards- Have you or a loved one ever gotten a tan from x-rays? If you have, call Dooleysquat, Schwartz and Schmuck for a free consultation. Do it Now!

Comments on the history of oxidants

Today we know that the chemical elements are capable of showing a range of behaviors in the category of reduction and oxidation (redox). Unlike our predecessors who attempted to wrap their arms around redox phenomena without the benefit of data or atomic theory, we are able to refer to tables of information which give details on the magnitude of redox phenomena and allow us to predict outcomes of transformations.

Reduction and oxidation has always been with us and for most of human history we were blissfully unaware of it as a distinct and complementary phenomenon. Beyond the conduct of redox in biology, for most of human history the major use of redox as a tool was combustion.  I would argue that humans began to do chemistry in earnest when we learned to generate fire and use it at will.  The introduction of fire allowed humans to apply significant thermal energy to materials in contrast to mechanical energy. Thermal energy changed the composition of materials in a way that was visible to us. With fire we could boil, dry, pyrolyze, combust, sinter, fracture and melt materials.  Food once cooked was forever changed. The combustion of wood produced much heat, charcoal, and ash.

Fire could provide warmth and destruction. It could be used as a weapon of war. The Chinese would become renowned for their command of deflagrations, explosions, rocketry, as would the Greeks for their Greek fire.  Chinese adepts learned to produce deflagration and explosions with energetic redox compositions centuries before the Europeans. With the spread of gunpowder formulation around the world, the problem of finding it’s components would plague adopters of this technology.

The basic rules of controlling fire were determined very early in human history. Some things burned and other things didn’t. The effects of air might have been inferred by the simple act of lighting kindling and blowing on it. Blowing on an ember can sustain it for a time and gives rise to increased heat. Fire can be accelerated by blowing air on it but may also be extinguished by too much wind. Clues to the basic nature of fire were there all along, but we lacked vocabulary, theory, and analysis.

The color of a wood fire can range from yellow/orange to bright yellow and it can warm you from a distance. Smoke was something that issued from fire and was perhaps troublesome. Fire and smoke always seem to rise upwards. More clues to to the behavior of matter, but as before, we lacked the tools of science until only in the last few centuries.

Today we can use atomic and quantum theory, thermodynamics, and the physics of radiation and buoyancy to explain and quantify fire and its many attributes. Today we can confidently state that a fire requires an initiation (the energy source), a reductant (the fuel), and an oxidizer (air). I think early man would have had a fairly concrete understanding of heat source and fuel. But the need for an oxidizer may have been less obvious. After all, air is all around us and is invisible. Nobody knew about the fire triangle or Smokey the Bear.

The development of oxidizers as a class of substances whose participation in chemical change was held back owing to the obscurity of the concept and the lack of a good theoretical basis like atomic theory.  Humans had been perishing by suffocation forever. Everyone has experienced the effects of oxygen deprivation whether it was by running from a sabretooth tiger or holding ones breath on a dare. But without the knowledge of oxygen and its function in respiration or in combustion, oxidation was the answer waiting for the right question.

Reducing materials as fuels for combustion or for the reduction of metal ores to the metal was common knowledge for a very long time. The introduction of oxidizing materials beyond the ever present air around us was a much harder nut to crack.  If we set the oxygen in air aside and focus on strongly oxidizing substances, we can begin to see the development of oxidizers as a class of materials.

One of the earliest oxidizers to find use was nitrate, commonly called saltpeter or nitre. Nitre was found in some damp locations that were rich in decaying organic materials. Nitre beds were often observed as having a white crust that migrated to the surface of the ground.  Early references of these nitre beds come from China and India. Nitre was capable of having multiple counter-ions. The early users of nitre were unaware of this of course. Later in history, makers of gunpowder would come to prefer potassium nitrate over the sodium salt owing to it’s lower aptitude for hydration. Hydrated saltpeter will passivate gunowder.  The story of gunpowder is well documented and the reader can pursue that trail on their own.

The discovery of oxygen in 1772 by Scheele could be considered a major step in the development of oxidation technology. While chemists were misguided by the theory of phlogiston, the isolation of a substance that supported combustion was a crucial conceptual leap.  Scheele and later Priestly would show that this new “air” would support combustion. In 1774 the discovery of chlorine by Scheele was the next major oxidizer to be identified. Chlorine was produced by the action of HCl on MnO2 (pyrolusite).  The bleaching effect of Cl2 gas was soon discovered by Scheele. The discovery of Cl2 soon lead to the discovery of bleaching powders. The earliest bleaching powder composition comprised of lime and chlorine was patented in 1798 by Charles Tennant in England. By the close of the 18th century, three important oxidizing compositions were produced: oxygen, chlorine, and calcium hypochlorite.  Chlorine and lime bleaching powder went into mass production at the beginning of the 19th century.

In a real sense, the development of oxidizers is very much like the invention of the lever. A level is used to amplify mechanical force. An oxidizing agent is used to amplify the extractive force on valence electrons. A strong oxidizing agent is able to bring energy to bare on select transformations that might not be otherwise available.  With the advent of this kind of transformation, new possibilities unfolded in history. By the middle of the 19th century, molecules with pendant oxidizing groups would be capable of self reaction to produce tremendous outbursts of energy. Nitroglycerine is one such molecule containing both reducing groups and oxidizing groups in one molecule. Oxidizers and oxidizing functional groups would change how we dig tunnels, extract minerals, carve canals, wage war, and eventually, compress uranium or plutonium into a critical mass for a nuclear explosion.

Some good career advice from Bill Carroll

At our annual ACS Colorado section banquet for local high school students and their teachers, we invited Bill Carroll to be the guest speaker.  Carroll gave a good talk with pertinent advice on starting and grooming ones technical career. I won’t repeat all of it, but a few good points stand out.

Carroll began the talk by highlighting the differences between commodity and specialty products. Then he transitioned into the suggestion that careers can be partitioned into specialty and commodity categories as well. His argument was that jobs can become commoditized just like gasoline and that, like any commodity, choices as to who fills the position may be made from a crowd of indistinguishable candidates. And, like commodities, the salary paid to such workers may be beaten down by excess supply.

However you stretch analogy, the point was that it might be best to have core skills embellished with secondary and diverse abilities.

Transit of Venus

I hope folks out there had a chance to view the transit of Venus across the solar disk yesterday.  I was lucky enough to see it through a 6 inch refractor and a Coronado H-alpha solar telescope. It’s always fun to see celestial mechanics in operation.

NASA has a video of the transit acrosst the sun taken at various wavelengths. Evidence of sunspot activity is much more pronounced at these wavelengths.