Category Archives: Chemical Industry

Flame and Ash

Fire is something that we are all familiar with. Everyone has experienced the simple fact that certain things can burn and in doing so are irrevocably changed. For mankind, fire has been an agent of change from the beginning of its use. A simple campfire can be thought of as a crucible where organic matter is destructively distilled and oxidized to carbon dioxide and water and where inorganic matter is consolidated to metal oxides, carbonates, and phosphates.

The flame of a campfire sits in place over the fuel source, appearing to be stationary. But in reality, a flame consists of hot flowing gas. It is the combustion process that is stationary.  A campfire is a kind of air pump pulling air in from the sides and lifting it upwards due to the buoyancy of hot combustion gases. As the gases rise, microscopic particles of glowing carbon are lifted above the wood giving the appearance of an envelope of glowing gas.  Properly mixed propane or natural gas give a flame that has a bluish appearance with much less luminosity. Reading is possible by the light of a campfire. It is not so good by the blue flame of a camp stove.

A wood campfire will consume the wood down to ash. But before the wood becomes ash it can be observed to change from a fibrous solid to a glowing ember of black carbon. The early phase of burning is characterized by the evolution of abundant volatiles that distill into and fuel the flame. Early gas lighting used the flammable gases destructively distilled from coal to provide flame lighting for streetlights and home lighting. The problem with coal gas was that it was free of particulates so the brightness of the flame was poor. The problem of poor gas flame luminosity lead to invention of the limelight and the lantern mantle.

The lantern mantle was developed to overcome the problem of poor gas flame luminosity. A fabric bag soaked in thorium nitrate solution (with 1 % cerium) was dried and then attached to a burner. The gas ignition process burned the fabric and caused the thorium to calcine in place, forming a gossamer webbing of thoria ceramic. The heat capacity (Cp) of thoria is relatively low and the melting point is exceptionally high. Low heat capacity materials require less energy to raise the temperature to a given point relative to high heat capacity materials. The result is that a flame of ordinary energy can raise the temperature of the low Cp thoria to produce high luminosity. The ceria in the mantle dampened the green tinge of glowing thoria to produce a relatively natural light.

Thoroughly burned wood produces an ash that is largely inorganic in nature and at one time was considered quite valuable for soap making and gunpowder. Wood ash was used to provide saltpeter for early gunpowder formulations.  In the early days of gunpowder, saltpeter was extracted from various sources and used with mixed results. The potassium nitrate or nitre form of saltpeter is found in wood ashes. Elsewhere, potassium nitre would appear in damp patches of organic-rich earth as a whitish solid clinging to twigs and plant matter on the ground looking much like hoar frost. Caverns have long been a rich source of sodium nitrate saltpeter. Mammoth Caves in Kentucky and Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico were mined for their nitrate rich sediments long before tourists began tramping through them.

In 15th and 16th century England, saltpeter was systematically cultivated and extracted on saltpeter farms.  These farms had deep beds of manure and plant matter that underwent air oxidation and were covered to shield them from rain.  After an aging period, the beds were transferred to a large basin and leached with water. The leaching solution was then boiled to dryness to give crude saltpeter. This crude nitrate was carefully recrystallized from water to produce a purified white crystalline product.

Saltpeter is a nitrate salt comprised of a nitrate anion and a cation like potassium, sodium or calcium. In the early days of gunpowder, quality and reliability of the powder was highly variable. One of the variables was the extent to which gunpowder attracted moisture. Powder makers eventually learned by trial and error that gun powders made from wood ash saltpeter were much less likely to be passivated by humidity than those made from sodium saltpeter. It became common practice to combine wood ash with saltpeter extracts from another source to produce what we now know to be potassium nitrate.

As an interesting aside, an important development in gunpowder came along when it was prepared in a form that was much less powdery. A technique known as “corning” was applied to the composition that made it more granular in form. This gave much improved burning characteristics.

Saltpeter from the guano beds of Chile were rich in sodium nitrate while material from the great nitre deposits along the Ganges river in India were substantially potassium nitrate. Indian nitre was an important commodity of the East India Company and strategic material for the British Crown.  Until the invention of the Haber-Bosch process of synthetic nitrogen fixation in 1909 and subsequent oxidation of ammonia to nitrate, the world’s guano beds, wood ashes and cave soils were the major sources of nitrates.

The first World War has been called the chemist’s war in part because of the tremendous casualty counts due to the mass implementation of nitroaromatic explosives like trinitrotoluene and picric acid. Haber is notorious for his part in the development of war gases, but the subsequent production of nitrates from his process was of no less consequence.

The last 20 % of the reaction

It’s common for a kinetics study of a reaction to focus on the first 5 % to say, 20 %, of reaction completion. Usually the study is done at high dilution as well. There are good reasons for this. Ideal solutions are best approximated at high dilution and interferences are not nearly so pronounced. The basic science behind the interaction between reactants can be teased out from the early course of the reaction.

For those of us in the chemical synthesis business the imperative is somewhat different. Our concern relates to the extent to which the reactants go to completion.  In commercial synthesis the desired outcome is to maximize the space yield of a process in the available equipment.  That means that work goes into determining the maximum concentration of reactants and getting the highest yield in the shortest time. The material state in the reactor near the end of a commercial run is quite far away from the conditions one would choose for a kinetic study.

Getting to reaction completion is sometimes rather difficult and may involve whiling away plant hours for the reaction yield to get just a bit closer to the asymptote.  The problem is that the remaining 5, 10, or 15 % reaction completion may consume considerable plant time and bring opportunity costs. Near the end of the reaction the reactants all trend to infinite dilution, so of course the reaction slows down.

Often reaction completion is not simply about getting higher yield. Purification may be greatly complicated by a reaction mass that contains remaining reactant. If chromatography is not an option then one is left with the usual methods of bulk purification. As we all know, some materials crystallize poorly out of a messy solution. This is where the plant chemist has to cancel all appointments and grind through the workup scheme.

I would say that semi-batch reaction completion problems can be a serious matter for a process chemist or engineer.  This is especially true with new processes but older processes can surprise you. My advice is to throw resources at it early. There is a tendency to get the run behind you and move on.  It’s best to work out a detailed analytical profile of the reaction mixture and strive to understand what the components are and what causes their appearance or disappearance. Sometimes changing the stoichiometry helps. Getting to completion and finding a clean work up is where the plant chemist really earns his pay.

What a Meth Lab is Not

It is time that someone questions the use of the phrase “meth lab”. Just as a cook would object to the phrase “meth kitchen”,  those of us who spend our careers in the laboratory should push back on the use of the word “lab” in this manner.  The use of this word confers the notion that a workspace is fitted for chemical handling activity and is operated by someone who knows what they are doing. Dubbing a meth operation as laboratory surrenders too much credit to the operator. These people are moonshiners skulking around on the periphery of society.

A meth lab is not a lab. It is the workshop of a criminal enterprise where unscrupulous people manufacture a dangerous substance. Its sole purpose is to profit from the uncontrollable neurological train wreck of methamphetamine addiction. This is not laboratory work. It’s just crime.

On the Merry Path of Calorimetry

I enjoy working with our RC1 reaction calorimeter. As we get more experience with thermal profiles of reactions, the utility of this instrument is made more evident. The Mettler-Toledo RC1 can be used to follow the heat evolution of a reaction for safety purposes, and/or it can be used to narrow in on optimum feed rates of reactants.

What is next on the agenda is to determine the heat transfer coefficient(s) and wetted heat transfer surface areas in selected reactors in order to gauge the upper heat load boundary that can be managed safely. There are many variables to contend with.  Inevitably, one has to pick a finite range of operating parameters to evaluate. Agitation rate, fill level, and heat transfer medium are variables to take into account.

So, down the merry path we go, learning more and more about applied thermodynamics and chemical engineering. I can dig it.

In my experience with people in different organizations in the context of training and expertise, I have come to notice that employees can be partitioned into two camps. There are those who wait to be trained and there are those who will not wait to for it.  As a rule, scientists and engineers are driven by curiosity and not a small portion of competitive spirit. This group will engage in self-study to acquire the necessary skills to push back the limits of their abilities.

An instrument like the RC1 requires that the user be familiar with the intimate details of the chemical transformation.  It is possible to alter the experiment profile on the fly, and that is not the work of a pure analyst following SOP’s. A chemist experienced in experimental synthesis with a broad background in material phenomena and descriptive chemistry is one who can steer the instrument and tease out key subtleties.

I recently had a reaction mixture in the RC1 that formed a slush at low temperature. At this temperature the heat flow trace was extremely irregular.  The reaction mass showed little visible sign of mixing.  Addition of reactant was followed by large magnitude, short coupled, exothermic swings. Apparently the heat of reaction was being released on a relatively small top portion of the reaction mass and eventually swirling towards the heat sensor strip with little dilution, giving exaggerated heat flow indications. With a Tr increase of 20 ºC and a higher mixing frequency, the mass began to thin a bit giving a vortex. The wild heat excursions disappeared.

What I take from this experience is that control problems might arise as a result of poor mixing leading to temperature or feed control inputs that are exaggerated as a result of being out of phase with the state of the reaction mass. An economic consequence might arise in the form of overly conservative metering of reactant, adding extra plant hours to the cost.

The concentration effects due to poor mixing can lead to localized enthalpic overheating and potential disturbances in the composition profile.  A reaction mixture with high viscosity or density in a solvent with low tensile strength (i.e., diethyl ether) can lead to cavitation and further exacerbation of mixing problems.

A poorly mixing slurry of reactive components in a low boiling solvent is a bad combination. Especially when the reactor is filled to afford low headspace. A temperature excursion can exceed the boiling point and cause the thick mixture to develop into a foam which can expand into the headspace or beyond.  This is the realm of heterogeneous flow and your emergency venting system may not be designed for such flows.  This is one of the many reasons that some operations define an operating temperature policy relating to the reaction temperature and the boiling point of the reaction solvent.

It is worth pointing out that process intensification is likely to lead to higher power densities (W/kg) in the reaction mass as well as solubility problems that can cause poor mixing and heat transfer. The RC1 can help the process chemist flesh out the merits of process intensification.

Why not encourage Iran and other states to develop thorium-based nuclear power?

It is a crying shame that we (the rest of the world) did not think to encourage Iran and other states to develop thorium-based nuclear power many years ago. The thorium fuel cycle provides nuclear-powered steam generation, but is largely absent the use of fissile isotopes in the cycle which may be used for nuclear proliferation.  Thorium-232 is more abundant that uranium-(235 + 238) isotopes and does not require isotopic separation as uranium does.

The great exploration boom in progress with rare earth elements would facilitate thorium supply. Thorium and uranium are commonly found in rare earth ores and, to the dismay of extractive metallurgists since the Manhattan Project, these elements tend follow along in rare earth extraction process. The isolation of thorium was developed long ago.  Point is, since so many rare earth element extraction process streams are either in operation or are pending, now is the time to accumulate thorium.

At present however, thorium is a troublesome and undesired radioactive metal whose isolation and disposal can be quite problematic. The best process schemes partition thorium away from the value stream as early in the process as possible and channel it into the raffinate stream for treatment and disposal in the evaporation pond.

The specific activity of natural thorium is 2.2 x 10^-7 curies per gram (an alpha emitter). The specific activity of natural uranium is 7.1 x 10^-7 curies per gram.  Alpha emitters pose special hazards in their handling. Dusts are a serious problem and workers must be protected especially from inhalation or ingestion. While alpha’s are not difficult to shield from, their low penetration through ordinary materials or even air makes them a bit more challenging to detect and quantitate relative to beta’s and gamma’s. In spite of the mild radioactivity of thorium, managing the occupational health of workers is known technology in practice in the nuclear industry.

Regrettably, most of the world’s nuclear power infrastructure is geared to uranium and plutonium streams. Thorium, the red-headed stepchild of the actinides, is thoughtlessly discharged to the evaporation ponds or to the rad waste repository- wherever that is- to accumulate fruitlessly. If we’re digging the stuff up anyway, why not put it to use? It is a shame and a waste to squander it.

USPTO to open new regional offices

Attention inventors!  I just received this from a friend who is a patent examiner. The USPTO is expanding to 4 new locations around the country.

================================

USPTO to Open Four Regional Patent Offices The Commerce Department and USPTO announced plans today to open regional USPTO offices in or around Dallas, Denver, and Silicon Valley, in addition to the already-announced first satellite office to open July 13 in Detroit. The four offices will function as hubs of innovation and creativity, helping protect and foster American innovation in the global marketplace. They will also help the agency attract talented IP experts throughout the country who will work closely with entrepreneurs to process patent applications, reduce the backlog of unexamined patents, and speed up the overall process, allowing businesses to move their innovation to market more quickly and to create new jobs.

Selection of the four sites was based upon a comprehensive analysis of criteria including geographical diversity, regional economic impact, ability to recruit and retain employees, and the ability to engage the intellectual property community. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA), signed into law by President Obama in September, requires the USPTO to establish regional satellite locations as part of a larger effort to modernize the U.S. patent system over the next three years.

Since the passage of the AIA, the USPTO and the Department of Commerce have been committed to an open, robust, and fair site selection process based on extensive public input. In addition to reviewing more than 600 public comments in response to a public Federal Register Notice, USPTO officials met with hundreds of state and local officials, congressional delegations, and policy leaders. The selection team developed a model to evaluate more than 50 Metropolitan Statistical Areas based on the previously stated criteria to assess operational cost and feasibility, ability to improve patent quality, and ability to employ U.S. veterans.

The USPTO will develop concepts of operations and best practices for the three newly-announced locations based on lessons learned from the Elijah J. McCoy Detroit Office over the coming months and years. While the Detroit office will employ approximately 120 individuals in its first year of operations, including patent examiners and administrative law judges, the USPTO is working to develop specific hiring plans for the other sites.

The agency will also seek to identify and maximize the unique regional strengths of all four offices to further reduce the backlog of patent applications and appeals.

“By expanding our operation outside of the Washington metropolitan area for the first time in our agency’s 200-plus year history, we are taking unprecedented steps to recruit a diverse range of talented technical experts, creating new opportunities across the American workforce,” said USPTO Director David Kappos. “These efforts, in conjunction with our ongoing implementation of the America Invents Act, are improving the effectiveness of our IP system, and breathing new life into the innovation ecosystem.”

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

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.