Category Archives: Chemical Industry

Frito-Lay’s New PLA Rattle Bag

As a veteran of the polylactic acid market invasion (PLA or polylactide) in the late 1990’s, I was heartened to see a new commodity application of PLA packaging appear on the shelves of the hometown grocer.  Well, alright. MArket invasion is overstating it a bit. We were one company among several in the race to grab PLA market share.  The founders of our company were engineers familiar with corn wet milling and the starch business. In the end, the skill set that carried the day was the combination of Cargill’s agribusiness presence and Dow’s massive polymer production business expertise. We were doomed. Our place as a Coors subsidiary with a modest cornstarch and wet mill operation just didn’t give us the gravitas to make the thing happen.

PLA is the polyester of lactic acid monomer, or perhaps more accurately, lactide monomer.  I’m generally in favor of PLA as a replacement polymer for polyolefin materials. PLA ultimately sources from starch fermentation in corn steep liquor.  Our process produced lactic acid using steepliquors as a nutrient source.

One of the reasons I left academics was the unusual chance to be part of a seemingly well funded startup aiming to commercialize a PLA process.  I’ve written about this before and won’t repeat it here. Our operation ultimately shut down within a year of my arrival due to some technology problems and a nervous group of investors- not an uncommon scenario.

My job was to come up with a comonomer for PLA to lower the glass transition temperature (Tg) and to bring down the crystallinity a bit. But first, some background.

One of the issues with PLA as a substitute commodity polymer was its relatively high Tg. PLA’s high Tg caused it to be unsuitable for contact with hot liquids owing to the fact that the polymer lose its rigidity and deform.  Food contact applications are a major commodity market for polymer producers, especially if the value proposition to the consumer is the biodegradability of the product.  Commonly disposable items like coffee and soft drink cups & lids, plastic utensils, straws, and diaper components are cited as ideal applications for green polymers. In order for PLA to be substituted into the disposables market, the matter of price and performance had to be resolved.

Our projections by 1998 were that PLA would be price comparable with nylon, then roughly $1.50 / lb.  Nylon was more expensive than polyolefins/polystyrene by quite a range, so the thinking was that at least initially, PLA would be specialty polymer product selling along the applications margins. PLA would have to grow, gaining acceptance by some kind of consumer.

But what is “some kind of consumer”?  It is easy to fall into the thinking that the crucial polymer consumers are the people buying the finished goods containing the polymer. But that isn’t exactly true. There is another key group of buyers than must be satisfied. And they are tough customers.

A crucial group of people who make buying decisions are actually found upstream of retail level consumers. They are the raw material buyers and they reside at several links on the value chain.

Let’s assume that the producer of a polymer -sold in pellet form- has produced a satisfactory product. It meets rigid specs for quality and performance.  The buyer of pelletized raw polymer is some kind of converter. A converter is a company that buys pelletized polymer and converts it to some variety of higher value product by the process of compounding and extrusion.  The compounder may produce films, filaments, or molded widgets. At this stage, polymer products are referred to as resins.

A compounder may be a producer of resin films or resin widgets who, in turn, supplies another manufacturer who uses the resin products for their own applications. Or, compounding may be integrated into the total manufacturing chain by one operator. A producer of things-that-contain-resin-widgets-or-films may have their own extrusion operation to contain cost.

What is critical to anyone scheming to bring a new polymer into the market is this: you have to sell the new resin to the compounder. If the new resin is more expensive, then the value proposition just got really difficult. A new (replacement) resin must have some kind of added value to the compounder and for the manufacturer downstream to  justify the disruption that its substitution is likely to cause.

What kind of disruption can polymer substitution cause?  All manufactured goods have specifications by which the manufacturer is able to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable quality. Specifications for components usually cite raw material specifications comprising physical or chemical properties, appearance, odor, or even specific commercial brands.  Swapping materials of construction or different compositions is a serious undertaking for a manufacturer of established goods. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

So, a resin substitution may require the persuasion of decision makers in a multicompany value chain to effect a substitution. This is the challenge before any producer of new resins. And PLA was in the same place as it was going to market in the late 1990’s. It takes a giant company with massive resources to effect the adoption of a new resin in the marketplace. Sales efforts have to be focused on the true decision makers. These are the manufacturers of packaging materials and the industrial buyers of resin components. They have to be convinced that any new resin won’t hurt existing sales and that there be some kind of premium for going to the trouble adopting change.

So, the new bag containing Frito-Lay Sunchips is on the market and it is made of PLA. Somewhere along the line a decision has been made to risk the change. I’ll say that the bags seem to have the same appearance as the previous variety.

The only problem is the rattle. The bags have rather a loud rattle due to the considerable crystallinity of PLA.  The way to make the rattle go away is to coploymerize it with a comonomer that increases the amorphous component of the polymer. PLA is made from enantiomerically enriched, biologically derived L-lactic acid. L-Lactic acid is used because it can be made cheaply by fermentation. The bugs only make one enantiomer.

The challenges of successfully incorporating a comonomer are many, and they are not all science related either. A comonomer must participate in ring-opening polymerization and combine with lactide. The relative reaction rates need to be in a range that allows for favorable incorporation without undue increases in reactor residence time. Comonomers can produce compositions varying from blocks of comonomer incorporation to random incorporation. It takes much time and abundant resources to work out the most desirable compositions and their respective economics.

We were using reactive extrusion where the residence time was related to screw speed and length of the extruder. Too much residence time at reaction temperature and the PLA would carmelize or darken. Residual acid is a killer. PLA is very sensitive to residual acid in the lactide. Very small amounts can be ruinous. It shut us down.

Incorporation of a comonomer that is not an agricultural or renewable product will taint the value proposition of “Green”.  Caprolactone is an example of a comonomer that had been explored by others, but [at the time of writing] I’m not aware that there is a Green route to that monomer. I recall that there were patent issues that prevented us from exploring caprolactone. However, there is a good chance that the patent issues have now expired. Nothing is forever, not even patents.

Follow this link for an earlier post on this topic.

The secret life of the industrial chemist

My blogging output volume has dropped to a trickle, and what little of what is posted is just blather.  Despite the relative quiescence of this blog, the blogger himself is busier than a one-legged cat trying to scoot across a frozen pond. Unfortunately, the one-legged cat has to keep mum about the missing legs or why he is on the lake in the first place.  If I don’t stroke out from the chronic cortisol exposure, I’ll write about it all one day.

After some years in the industrial setting I am able to see why there is such a disconnect between academia and industry. The imperatives of the industrial chemist are dramatically different than that for a brother or sister chemist in academia. It is the job of the academic chemist to uncover new phenomena and tell the world about it. Oh yes, and teach a few students along the way.

The industrial chemist’s job is to apply known processes or to uncover them himself for greater profit for the stock holders. The main difference is that the industrial chemist must keep the work secret, or more accurately, out of the public domain.

Why did I use the word ‘disconnect’?  Well, if an industrial chemist wants to collaborate with an academic partner, the matter of secrecy comes up.  If the academic cannot transmute the work into a scholarly publication for inspection by the promotion and tenure committee, then he has effectively been unproductive.  Academics turn funding into publications. Well, except for the 50 % of the money that goes into overhead support.  If an academic does collaborate with an industrial group, there is the very real problem for the academic of how to use the work for career advancement, i.e., publication. Just covering academic labor and materials isn’t really enough (or shouldn’t be) for the university workers.

Another issue arises in regard to intellectual property. That is the matter of secrecy within an academic research group.  Say professor Smith has taken advantage of the Dole-Bayh Act and is performing research with the goal of applying for a patent. This very fact sets the group down a path that requires non-disclosure of results prior to and during the application.   Several things have to be in place in an academic lab that are unusual for the academic setting, but normal for the industrial setting.

First, patent-seeking academics must be very quiet about their work during the critical concept development phases. One of the most disastrous things that can happen to a patent application is confusion relating to the matter of inventorship.  And one way to muddy the inventorship is to be careless about who is involved in technical discussions while the invention is in the formulative phase. In the university setting, group meetings with outsiders or uninvolved group members can lead to unexpected and poorly documented inventive contributions.

Word to the wise: You don’t have to wait for someone to complain about inventorship after the patent is allowed. If your own patent attorney, who is an officer of the court I might add, gets wind that someone was left off the inventors list during prosecution, he/she is duty bound to amend the application, possibly casting doubt in the mind of the examiner on the veracity of earlier signed documents.

Playing games with the list of inventors is the fast track to rejection of the application. All inventors and assignees should clearly understand that your own patent attorney, the one whose boat payment you’re funding, answers to a higher calling, so to speak.  They have obligations and liabilities that you can’t  imagine. Help them get you a patent with the cleanest possible file wrapper.

An academic research group with more members than inventors probably needs to split the invention away from the rest of the group. This is a good opportunity for the patent attorney to school the group members on the patenting process and outline best practices. The research prof should outline a plan to partition the group in a way that disclosure is minimized. Notebooks and meetings should be carefully monitored in any event, but some kind of isolation is always best.

Then the question arises of what to do with thesis work that arose from an incomplete patent project. What does the student get out of it? This is magnified even more if the professor is part of a startup company who intends to use the technology the grad student developed. Again, what does the grad student get of it?  A degree? For development services in getting a startup off the ground?  Good question. Certainly there examples out there where these matters have been worked out.

My views on academic patenting have been expressed previously and I still believe it is terrible public policy.

It is plain that patenting in the academic environment poses special challenges and cultural changes for those hoping to get a patent.  In the industrial setting, such matters are normal and institutionalized.

Process development and struggle

One of the hazards of having a degree in chemistry is the appealing idea that you can explain everything and predict everything on the basis of textbook notions on solubility, electronegativity, pKa’s, or molecular orbitals. These are important things to be sure. But in the field, the recall of knowledge isn’t always enough. More often than not you have to collect data and generate new knowledge.

Rationale of a result on the basis of hand waving and a few reference points can seem compelling in a meeting or brainstorming with a colleague to understand a problem. But in the end, nothing can top having solid data from well conceived experiments.

My chemical “intuition” have proven wrong enough times now that I am deeply skeptical of it. After prolonged periods of absence from the lab I find myself resorting to a few cherished rules of thumb in trying to predict the outcome or explain the off-normal result of a process.

In chemical process development there is no substitute for running experiments under well controlled conditions and capturing solid results from trustworthy analytical methods. It is hard work. You may have to prepare calibration standards for chromatographic methods rather than the preferred single-transient nmr spectrum  in deuterochloroform.

We’re all tempted to do the convincing quick and dirty single experiment to finesse the endpoint. Certainly time constraints in the manufacturing environnment produce an inexorable tilt towards shortcuts. But in the end, depth of knowledge is only had by hard work and lots of struggle in the lab. The most important part of science seems to be to frame the most insightful questions.The best questions lead to the best experimental results.

Andy Grove on Scaleup

Andrew Grove is the former CEO of Intel who was responsible for its transition from memory chip producer to microprocessor producer. According to Wikipedia, Grove is responsible for an increase of 4500 % in Intel’s market capitalization. In his youth he and his family escaped from Budapest, Hungary during the Soviet invasion of 1956. Groves holds a PhD in chemical engineering from UC Berkeley. Grove is now retired and is a senior advisor to Intel.

Grove recently wrote an article for Bloomberg that is quite insightful in its analysis of certain aspects of American corporate culture. In particular, Grove notes the disconnect between US technology startups and the subsequent expansion of business activity leading to job growth. He also notes that startups are failing to scaleup their business activity in the USA. The Silicon Valley job creation machine is powering down.

Grove makes an interesting point here,

A new industry needs an effective ecosystem in which technology knowhow accumulates, experience builds on experience, and close relationships develop between supplier and customer. The U.S. lost its lead in batteries 30 years ago when it stopped making consumer-electronics devices. Whoever made batteries then gained the exposure and relationships needed to learn to supply batteries for the more demanding laptop PC market, and after that, for the even more demanding automobile market. U.S. companies didn’t participate in the first phase and consequently weren’t in the running for all that followed. I doubt they will ever catch up.  Andrew Groves, 2010, Bloomberg.

To build on what Grove is saying, I’ll embellish a bit and add that an industry is actually a network of manufacturers, suppliers, job shops, labor pools, insurers, bankers, and distributors. When deindustrialization occurs, the network of resources collapses. The middle class takes a big hit when a commodity network moves offshore. In the end, the intended market for commodity goods and services- ie., the middle class- is weakened by the very move that was supposed to keep prices down and profits up.

Grove is most concerned with the matter of scaleup. This is the business growth phase that occurs after the entrepreneurship proves its worth in the marketplace. Investors pour money ino large scale operations and staff to get product onto the market. Grove suggests that investment in domestic startups who do not follow on with domestic scaleup are not participating in keeping the magic alive.

Offshore scaleup negatively counteracts the benefit of domestic innovation. In a sense, it is an abdication of the trust given to the entrepreneurs by the citizens who provided the infrastructure to make the innovation possible.

Grove makes a good point in his editorial and I think that the rest of us need to take an active stance to question the facile analysis so often uttered by business leaders when it comes to relocation of business units offshore.  Citizens paid for the infrastructure and a large part of the education that makes our innovative technology possible. There needs to be more public pushback on business leaders and government officials about this topic.

Viewpoints on American Business

Over at the Robert Reich blog there is a recent commentary on Chinese currency policy. Reich makes some interesting comments on the Chinese approach to industrialization.

But most fundamentally, China is oriented to production, not consumption. It wants to become the world’s preeminent producer nation. While keeping the yuan artificially low is costly to China — it pushes up the prices of everything China imports — China is willing to bear these costs because its currency policy is really an industrial policy.

We think the basic purpose of an economy is to consume, not to produce. So we only grudgingly support industrial policy. We think of government efforts to rebuild our infrastructure as a “stimulus.” We approve of government investments in basic research and development mainly to make America more secure through advanced military technologies. And we give American companies tax credits for R&D wherever they do it around the world.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that US companies will continue to make big profits from sales in China. China allows big U.S. and foreign companies to sell in China on condition that production takes place in China – often in joint ventures with Chinese companies. It wasn’t American know-how, so it can eventually replace the US firms with China firms.  [Italics by Gaussling]

It seems to me that American policy leaders have no clue whatsoever on how to coexist or compete with China economically. Because of the authoritarianism in contemoporary Chinese culture, they are able to focus their resources on long term goals while we in the USA rely on a kind of economic Darwinism. It seems that we are waiting for the rational forces of the marketplace to take us forward in the economic struggle with China.  In reality, American businesses have no nationality. Their obligation is only to achieve maximum shareholder value, irrespective of parochial concepts of national interest.

Americans like to put on a show of maintaining an orthodox capitalistic stance against a nation state like China. One with a centrally controlled economy.  Unfair currency policy is a foreign policy that China is using to leverage the flow of export dollars their way.  Somehow we are content to play cards with an opponent who has stacked the deck.

It is worth remembering that much of the technology that economically emergent states use to energize their manfacuring sectors was paid for by US citizens over the last 100 years. Electronics , metallurgy, chemistry, aerospace, transportation, automation. The US has made substantial contributions to technologies that are now ubiquitous.

These emergent states have not funded generations of successive invention and improvement to achieve their semiconductor FAB or petrochemical complex. Corporate investors dropped it out of the sky.  This technology that we have been busy exporting has been dearly paid for by generations of hard working citizens here. Yet, through the exercise of advanced business philosophies, this magic of ours has been transplanted off shore to the benefit of a few.

I think there is an assumption that our American democracy is somehow a uniquely robust form of democracy. It is hard to make that argument anymore. A culture that equates money with speech and validates it in the Supreme Court is a culture that accepts the notion that the congress is part of the marketplace of goods and services.

In the face of a shift in the global economic center of gravity, Americans are busy in an orgy of fratricidal disassembly of its institutions. Journalism and independent media come to mind.  The former watchdogs of democracy are now quasi-analytical entertainment divisions of a few major comglomerates.

The market is like a stomach. It has no brain. It only knows that it wants more. I think nations like China know this about us and take full advantage of the fact that we like to wear the badge of orthodox capitalist on our sleeves. In a way we are just country bumpkins who have never traveled out of the county. We’ll be true to our doctrine as we run aground.

I think that, in the end, publically owned corporations will be the death of our economic vitality. Blind reverence for CEO’s who maneuver a dividend no matter what the economic climate force this species of organization to abdicate any sense of national affiliation. It’s been happening for many years. Legions of B-school students study the strategy of Jack Welch and similar ethically agnostic characters who serve the greater good of the corporation.

Instead, legions of B-school students should be trying to figure out how to sustain American manufacturing rather than how to outsource it. These people should not confuse M&A with progress. Making things and offering services that people want is how progress happens. If taxes are too high to sustain business within these borders, then an open effort to bring corporate taxes into line based on mathematically defensable arguments should be made. To work for progress is to be progressive. We need more progressive business people, not more financial wizards. The grownups of America need to step up.

Process Intensification and the Chemical Marketplace

Somewhere along the timeline of a given chemical plant process a manager will (or at least should) ask the question: “can we run this process in a more efficient and safer manner”?  Chemists and engineers may be set to work finding ways to extract more profit from a process.

There are numerous ways any given process may be improved. How that is done specifically depends on the process, obviously. But certain generalities can be made that serve as a guideline in thinking through the process.

In this essay I will limit my comments to batch or semi-batch processing and to specialty and fine chemicals. Continuous processes and commoditized products are out of the scope of this essay.

Batch and Semi-Batch

A batch process is one in which a vessel is charged with raw materials which are allowed to react to form a desired product. A semi-batch process is one in which raw materials are metered into the vessel over the course of the reaction. From a process safety perspective, the big difference between the two is that the batch reaction is the one with all of the reaction energy contained in the vessel from the start. A semi-batch process is one in which the energy is metered in based on the limitations of heat transfer capacity.

Commodity Chemicals

Some chemicals are commodity products and others are specialty or fine products. A commodity chemical is a product which is produced at a large (relative) scale, commonly in a continuous process, and is subject to price pressures generated by national or global scale competition. There are exceptions, naturally. Generic drugs or semiconductor chemicals may be commoditized but manufactured by relatively small scale batch processing though still subject to commodity market dynamics.

A commodity chemical product is one which has numerous producers offering similar specifications and varying mostly by price, often resulting in strong competition. As a result of the large scale and the great competition, commodity chemicals are often priced at low dollar-per-unit levels. Owing to the basic nature of commodity chemicals in manufacturing, it is not uncommon for commodity chemical sales volume to be an economic indicator.

Here is an important economic point in thinking about commodity vs non-commodity chemicals. Commodity chemicals typically have a cost structure featuring large raw material or energy costs. Commodity processing is all about the dilution of overhead into high volume. Commodity cost structures may be quite immobilized by fixed raw material and/or energy costs.

Commodity chemicals are commonly used for mass production of other goods. Examples of commodity chemicals include NaOH, soda ash, potash, sulfur, sulfuric acid, HCl, chlorine, BTX, ethylene, propylene, butanol, ethanol, methanol, naphtha, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, etc. These are materials bought and sold by the railcar and whose sales volumes indicate the health and vigor of entire nations. Other, lower volume, chemicals are commoditized as well. Additives and treatment chemicals for commodity consumer goods like pigments, solvents, plasticizers, dyes, food processing additives, lubricants, polymer additives, metal treatment chemicals, agrichemicals, etc. These goods are sold on the large scale for their performance modification or other properties.

Specialty and Fine Chemicals

Specialty and fine chemical products are commonly sold in lower volumes for a broad range of manufacturing and formulation activity. There is no sharp line of demarcation between commodity and high volume  fine chemicals. Commoditization is less a manufacturing phenomenon and more of a market phenomenon. The same is true for specialty and fine chemicals.

Specialty and fine chemicals are an important part of the total chemicals market sector. There are tens of thousands of chemical entities on the market. Most are deeply obscure, in demand only by a few researchers. A common growth strategy of  catalog companies is to increase the number of catalog offerings, thus snagging new customers by providing specialized precursors to those who do not want to make a science project out of starting materials. This business strategy has helped to grow the well known chemical catalogs to their immense size.

A specialty chemical is a material that feeds into a particular use, or is valuable or usable only to a particular end user. Commonly, a specialty chemical may be used for a single application by a single customer or a few narrow applications for a few customers. A specialty chemical is often part of an intellectual property package whose use and identity is highly controlled. The specialty chemical, like a fine chemical, may be covered under process patents that limit manufacturing practices.

A specialty chemical may be of technical grade (i.e., 60 to 95 % purity) or it may be highly purified. It might be of a complex composition and specifiable only under bulk properties like viscosity, flash point, or color. Or a specialty chemical might be highly purified and have sharply defined specs requiring spectroscopy, chromatography, XRD, % ee, or elemental analysis. A specialty chemical might also be a fine chemical in the sense that its composition is in the public domain, but its application is just obscure or covered by a patent.

Generally, a fine chemical is a substance whose composition is in the public domain and is refined to some commercially viable level. A fine chemical may be a reagent or a substrate and may be  used by anyone technically qualified to handle it. Very often, the composition of a fine chemical is understood to a high level. Fine chemicals may be starting materials for the manufacture of other substances, or may be used directly in an application where it remains chemically intact at the retail level.  An example would be an emulsion stabilizer or some polymer additive.

Specialty and fine chemicals are not mathematically distinct definitions. The differeces are based on market behavior and intellectual property. Examples exist which may find a home under both definitions. For the most part, a specialty chemicals manufacturer is a producer of customized materials with a limited base of potential customers.

The Prime Directive

Here is the central business imperative of any chemical plant- we want to run the reaction as fast as possible without taking undue risks. Labor costs and other overhead accumulate with process time, Δt. Any given batch fine or specialty plant has x gallons of capacity available for use 24 x 7 every year. The key to profitable operation is to get maximum product output per unit time. That means maximum space yield and/or maximum rate. Decreasing production time is equivalent to increasing plant capacity.

Production risk divides into two principal domains: 1) safety and 2) economic. While it is possible to have an economic risk without a significant safety risk, the practical fact is that all safety risks are also economic risks. So in the execution of a process improvement, very practical thinking has to guide the work.

Cost Drivers

Commoditized chemicals are often disproportionately raw material or energy cost intensive relative to specialty and fine chemicals. High volume, low margin products that have been in a competitive market a while have most likely been optimized such that the labor contribution to overhead has long been minimized. For a given plant, significant improvements to the cost structure may not be easily found in the labor column if the major costs are raw mats. Except as follows. Relocating a plant to a country with lower labor and/or tax costs. Commodity production follows the labor cost gradient from a high-cost labor pool to a lower-cost labor pool.

Process intensification on chemical products that have been commoditized for a long time is difficult. Besides relocation of the manufacturing site, a step change in processing technology may be needed to improve process economics. Fundamentally new chemistry (or catalyst!) or reactor type or in materials handling may be needed to justify a change.

Whereas commoditized chemical costs may be driven by raw material or energy costs, specialty and fine chemicals are most likely to have a cost structure driven by labor and overhead. A dominance by labor cost contribution will be especially true early in the life of the chemical product. The early developmental period in the market life of a fine or specialty product is the time when competition is likely to be minimal and price pressures lowest.

Early in the life of a fine or specialty chemical product is the time when the end user is struggling to understand the market picture. This is the commercial development period. While the end user (customer) is certainly trying to contain costs, low volume may cause the buyer to rely on a single supplier for a time. This gives the vendor a chance to log enough process iterations to bring the production costs more in line with expectations.

When pricing smaller volume products, every effort should be made to pad the costs in anticipation of process upsets and low yields. And for high margin. R&D and scaleup costs are typically highest early in the life of a product. Margins should be high enough early on so that the early production pays for the development. Customers will not be enthused about this. They’ll want you to “partner” with them and get some skin in the game early. Try to avoid this, politely.

A small volume fine or specialty product should be heavy in labor costs. Over time, and as price pressure from customers mount, the vendor should be able to accept price concessions through improvements in labor contribution. This is wiggle room. A smart vendor will never price a new product too close to raw mat cost since the inevitable movement of price is downward.

Low volume specialty or fine chemicals are often not subject to the same sort of pricing dynamiocs as the commodity chemicals. This category of chemical manufacture is more obscure and the products may not be manufactured constantly or in large lots.

Importantly, lower volume fine and specialty chemicals are commonly purchased on a spot buy basis rather than a supply contract. Owing to the lack of long term certainty of cash flow, spot buy prices are always higher than contract prices.

Process Intensification. The benefits.

The business of making a reaction execute in a shorter time or in a higher batch space yield or batch chemical yield is called process intensification. The idea of intensification is to produce more product per unit batch volume of processing equipment and/or per unit batch time. Every chemical plant has a fixed number of operable reactor gallon hours per year.  Given that conventional chemical batch reactors are fixtures that are very expensive to modify or change out, it is desirable to focus effort on getting the maximum product out of those limited reactor gallon hours.

In a competitive market, one way to grow is to find advantageous economies of scale and pass some of that improvement along in the form of more attractive pricing.  The ability to maximize the throughput of product in fixed equipment is the ability to dilute overhead expenses into a greater number of kgs of product and direct more cash into the profit column.

Process intensification almost always involves doing something faster, hotter, at higher pressure, or in increased concentration. That is the intensification part. An exception might be an alternate process that affords a higher chemical or space yield, or faster rxn rate without undue risks.  One should always be on the lookout for these plums.

Process Intensification. The down side.

The attactive part of process intensification is quite plain. But there is a down side that may or may not be apparent in any given intensification project. It is a change that could bring plant operations closer to the release of hazardous energy.

The question that any process intensification project should squarely address is the matter of the accumulation of hazardous energy. This can be manifested in many ways.

For example, you increase the concentration of your reaction mixture in your process. This is a space yield intensifying improvement that has the benefit of advantageous bimolecular kinetics. You get more product per batch and you increase the reaction rate by increasing the reagent concentrations.  Reagent feed times are nominally increased, but probably not to a deleterious extent.

Naturally, there are consequences to consider. Is there an induction period to look out for? The thermal consequences of this may be magnified at higher space yields.

Does the intensified process produce excessive and unwanted side products?

Does the process generate a precipitate or increase the viscosity of the reaction mass? Increased viscosity has a deleterious effect on heat transfer and mixing efficiency. Slurry formation may be enhanced and consequently produce problems with discharge and pumping of the reactor contents. Filtration may be problematic as well.

Furthermore, as a result of reagent addition the reaction mixture may have a greater density that the initial solution in the vessel, diminishing power transfer efficiency in agitation. Effectively you may end up vortexing an inner band of reaction mass with poor flow along heat transfer surfaces.

Cavitation at the impeller tips may occur and attenuate the efficiency of heat transfer. Heating a viscous two phase reaction mass may lead to localized overheating along the reactor  jacket if it is rigged for heat. I have seen this lead to flash boiling of volatile solvents along the jacket surface with an increase in pot pressure.

Another form of process intensifiaction is through the application of higher reaction temperature and/or pressure. Increasing the reaction temperature could be as easy as using a higher boiling s0lvent. Or it could entail higher pressure as well. Whereas most operations can easily accommodate a higher boiling solvent, higher pressure will require specialized pressure vessels. These are less common, in fact, they are part of a manufacturing subspecialty in their own right.

To summarize, intensify a commodity chemical process is more likely to involve  addressing raw materials, energy inputs, and material handling.  Conversely, while specialty and fine chemical processing could benefit from the above areas of concern, unit labor cost is likely to be a target for process improvement. Labor cost is something that can be minimized most easily by process intensification and quite likely without fundamental equipment changes.

From time to time, all processes should be re-examined for efficiency and safety improvements. But the operator should expect consequences in any process change.

A chemist’s encounter with boneheads and the disreputable

One of the things that happens to a chemist in the sales department is the business of taking odd phone calls. Someone out there will scan the internets for information on some particular substance or product and find the number of your company switchboard. The person at the front desk  will spend a moment with the caller and then connect them with someone like myself.

During my business development time I have been amused, surprised, pestered, annoyed, and yes, a little frightened.  I have fielded calls from a prisoner wanting expert witnessing (his planned appeal was based on a false premise), illicit drug makers wanting bulk intermediates sent to their motorcycle or chrome shops, and crooked characters wanting items on the MCA list sent to their garage operations.

I am not a member of the law enforcement fraternity. God knows these characters have never asked for my help.  There is precious little I can personally do in the fight against drug crime. But foiling those who would profit from poisoning the nervous systems of our citizens is something that can be done by chemists.

I have spoken with misguided people on the dark side of chemistry who are on the fast track to prison. And, I have taken calls from parents of K-12 students wanting energetic or otherwise hazardous materials for their science fair project. In this case, we’ll have a polite discussion about safety and I’ll offer some alternatives.

I have been yelled at by frustrated foreign nationals for my refusal to quote on items on the munitions list or the State Department’s official shit list of bad actors. Some were persistant buggers, but I extracted satisfaction in interfering with their sourcing plans. The front lines in illegal technology transfer or illegal synthetic drugs is not in the offices of the authorities. It is on the phones and emails messages of companies who sell materials or devices that facilitate the activity.

It turns out that knowingly selling substances to suspicious characters is not only morally wrong or makes you an accessory, but it is just plain bad business. Long term stability for you and your company requires compliance with the code. Selling materials that may be used for illicit purposes by unqualified buyers is only an open invitation for trouble.

Trolling for organizational weaknesses happens all of the time and all over the business world. Industrial espionage, attempts at illegal export/import of controlled materials, and raw material sourcing attempts for illicit or controlled substances. You have to keep your head on a swivel and qualify your customers.  

Trade shows are particularly bad for spying and competitive intelligence gathering. Companies who can afford large trade show booths will have an enclosed room to meet privately with potential customers. That way watchful eyes will have a harder time figuring out what they’re up to.

Few experienced business development people are shy about asking questions, especially yukking it up over a business dinner and drinks. When in doubt about giving information, just shut your yap, shrug your shoulders, and grin.

Always be up front and honest when it comes to withholding confidential information. Even, or perhaps especially, when you have an NDA in place.  You do not want to get in the habit of discussing sensitive topics in social settings. Leave that for meetings in the conference room where your cohorts can participate and everyone can hear what was disclosed. Savvy business people on either side will halt conversation on the spot if they believe that proprietary information is being divulged inappropriately.

As to the matter of gaming the system, I’ll offer that it’s always better in the long run to avoid planting misinformation. It is better to be regarded as uninformed or unhelpful rather than as a liar in the sales world. You can eventually slough off the reputation of being a bit uninformed or rude. But once branded as a liar, even in a field of liars, it is a stink that will follow you for the rest of your career in sales.

A bit of sympathy for BP

I can’t help but have some sympathy for the folks at BP just now. They are not the evil empire and despite their poor safety history, say, the recent Texas City refinery explosion, they do in fact rack up a good many safe operating hours doing very hazardous work. They handle and process flammable materials on the gigantic scale.  And, they respond to market pull for petroleum products.

I have been to meetings in their facilities in the UK and discussed new technology platforms that they wanted to bring on stream. I have listen to a few of their scientists describe their technology and marveled at the new things they have found for molecules to do. They are smart, competent, and well meaning people and we should not lose sight of this.

BP helps to provide the petroleum that we use to conduct out busy modern lives.  We gladly consume every bit of their output. In fact, their contribution to the supply picture helps to keep hydrocarbon prices low. The same is true of all the producers.

The now famous spill in the gulf is clearly a bad thing and it happened to them for several reasons.  But consumers have not responded to this in what you might call a philosophical manner. Nobody seems to be jolted into wakefulness by the depth that producers have to drill to find oil or the fact that these guys are resorting to drilling way out on the continental shelf.  We just plug along expecting demanding that they keep producing at the same price.

If the critics of BP can drill better or operate distillation towers or cat crackers better than BP, then they should get off their duffs and do it. Put up or shut up. The chronic condition we are all subject to is the truism that we can do better.  If you think you can be a better driller, then try it. It’s harder than it looks and it doesn’t look easy.

Needlessly invoking clathrates. BP’s underwater ice machine.

In the news reporting on the BP oil spill, there is talk of methane/water forming a special ice composition that defeated the previous attempt to channel oil to the surface.  I think folks are referring to clathrate formation. This ice blocked the flow of petroleum from the concrete structure that was lowered over the well head.

But, here is the deal. Wouldn’t you expect cooling of a compressed gas as it exits the well pipe and into the sea water? Isn’t this just an example of the Joule-Thompson effect?  As the natural gas component of the petroleum discharge exits the pipe, it is going to expand somewhat, even at a one mile depth, and cool the surrounding water. If this occurs in unconfined, open water, the jet of petroleum will entrain water in the flow and be warmed by the continuous flow of heat from the water.

But, if the gas/oil mixture of petroleum is ejected in a confined space that interferes with heat transfer, then one would expect the expansion cooling of the gas phase to predominate and cool the water in the confining space, possibly to the freezing point. Clathrates may be formed, but the simplest explanation is from good old thermodynamics.

Minnesota’s fabulous Cu-Ni-Pt-Pd-Au Nokomis deposit

A world class non-ferrous mineral deposit in Minnesota is on the cusp of opening.  Duluth Metals, a Canadian mining company, has been engaged since at least 2006 in developing its Nokomis property in northern Minnesota along the north shore of Lake Superior. The magnitude of the find is stunning and Minnesota will eventually be synonymous with non-ferrous metals like copper, nickel, platinum group metals, and Norwegian bachelor farmers.  The Duluth complex is part of the second largest mafic intrusion in the world, second only to the Bushveld complex in South Africa.

Mining people are accustomed to looking at these reports and the accompanying prospectus. But it is interesting for we sheltered, begloved, and begoggled chemists to view the birth of a new mining district from the protected confines of our air conditioned laboratories. Perhaps in a few years Minnesota palladium will catalyze your Suzuki coupling.