Category Archives: Chemistry

Reality Check. Always Certain But Frequently Wrong.

One of the benefits of being a student is that there is always someone standing over your shoulder, watching the choices you make. In school you choices result in a score of some sort. Out in the world, your choices have bigger consequences than letter grades.

As in school, the Big Big World is always under time pressure. Better, Faster, Cheaper. There isn’t always time to deliberate on the global optimum solution. In industry, sometimes the choice you make is the first one that shows any promise. Experienced business people know that everything takes longer and costs more than you first realize. There is no substitute for an early start.

What results from this need to jumpstart a project is the failure to question your basic assumptions.  In chemistry, a person may slide into the seductive notion that you are an expert in a process and, of course, you know that your process will work on a particular analog. But, do you really?

Non-linear phenomena are particularly troublesome.  Or phenomena that are polynomial in description.  It is hard to intuit outcomes when terms that were previously small become dominant in the equation. There is no substitute for measurement. If you want to truly understand a thing, eventually you are going to have to make measurements and plot a curve.

Like a lot of people fresh from Grad School, I was sometimes an arrogant turd. Just ask around. Today I am much more cautious about my abilities and knowledge. Periodically I am reminded that intuition can fail. Like a 2×4 between the eyes.

While I can’t give details, I have had to drastically recalibrate my intuition about some things that I believed I had a handle on. It involved mass transport concepts. The separation of substances can be subject to constraints that aren’t so obvious to someone who has only been through the ACS-approved chemistry curriculum. An engineer might have looked at my circumstance and solved the problem in a New York minute.

But Th’ Gaussling had to learn the hard way. What else is new?

On Chemical Negotiation

I always amazes me how little negotiation goes on in chemical B2B transactions. Buyers ask for the price of an obscure chemical and that may be the last you hear from them. Only rarely do I see pushback. Either a purchase order arrives or it doesn’t.  I’m not referring to trainloads of soda ash or other mass quantities of commodity chemicals. I’m talking in the one to 100 of kg range. People naturally take prices as fixed in concrete.

This is especially unfortunate or even tragic for materials that are very unusual. Items that have a low volume or minimal competition are products whose price has not been made rational through the forces of the market place. Competition has not forced the price to an optimum level.

Price is determined by what the market will bear. If there is limited exposure of a product to the market, then a rational price probably has not been reached and someone is leaving money on the table. Prices are initially based on some reasonable multiple of costs. The demand picture and the sellers anxiety to move product determine the real price point.

Much has been written about negotiation. I have no new concepts to add except a reminder that the best deals can come from multiple iterations of offer/counter-offer. Only by going into cycles of offer/counter-offer can you find out exactly what is possible to get from the bargaining.

Some companies, like SAF for example, are notoriously rigid in their approach to sales. I have found that they do fix their prices in blast resistant concrete. SAF is uber-aggressive in the marketplace because they are after total global domination. But not all companies are like this. Many are pleased to make a deal to get some material out of inventory.

What is troublesome for manufacturers of new or obscure products is that the initial price may frighten off a buyer. If the buyer recoils in horror from a price without any attempt to negotiate, then they lose the benefit of that product and the seller loses the sale and perhaps the entire market future of the material. I have seen this happen many times.

What makes this a difficult issue for the seller is that you don’t want to seem too anxious to drop your price. That just telegraphs to the buyer that they should expect a better price. The seller should have a front price that they want and a fallback price that they can live with. It is better to have the fallback price than nothing.  The skill comes in the smooth application of salesmanship.

A good sales person watches the prospective buyer carefully for flight impulse and silently swoops in like a vampire for the seduction and the lusty bite. 

Sustainable Chemistry and YOU

A new chemical journal was distributed at the recent ACS meeting. It is called ChemSusChem and is a European effort published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. The theme is chemistry and sustainability. Librarians and Deans will surely groan when they hear a new chemical journal is available. I don’t know what an institutional subscription costs, but they all seem to be very expensive.

More than a few of us are convinced that we are presently watching a slow motion movie of the de-industrialization of the European Union. Many will scoff at the appearance of another greenish journal, especially from the EU. Indeed, the EU does seem hell-bent on outsourcing its basic industry to other parts of the planet with lower overhead costs. But cost doesn’t seem to be the only driver.

The EU has become a confederation of nanny states, all seemingly pre-occupied with the extermination of risk (and the US is on the way as well).  Some of it is legitimate, I believe, but to a significant extent some of the EU fussing with environmental issues is due to an inability to come to terms with ppm-level risk. Thus REACH.

The effect of REACH may be that this de-industrialization is accelerated. I am now involved in trying to understand REACH and how it affects exports to the EU.  For smaller companies who do not have the administrative structure to accomodate a new shelf of complex regulations, this is a genuine burden. Not just in terms of direct labor to manage it, but also the associated liability of non-compliance.

So, back to sustainable chemistry. The basic idea of sustainability provides for minimizing ecological insult and maximizing the long term availability of natural resources. It is hard to argue with the merits of this. But I would take it a step further.  Sustainable chemistry can easily accomodate advantageous economics if it is executed right.

Advantageous how?

Turns out that the principles of sustainability run in parallel with many good operating practices in process development.  High space yields, good atom efficiency, minimum energy inputs, solvent recycling, hazard abatement, etc. All of these ideals add up to maximum economic benefit.  It is just a form of frugality.

The people who can implement sustainable chemical processing are R&D and process chemists and engineers.  By adding more frugal methodologies to our toolkits, we can put sustainability into practice. The direct benefit would be better process economics. The larger benefit is a better competitive posture for industry that has chosen to remain in the EU or North America.

Sustainable principles applied to process chemistry can be a “next wave” of innovation that can lead to a re-think by business leaders in the eternal chess game of industry.  A tidy bit of “sustainable chemistry” has already been published. We chemists should filter through this to see what may be applicable.

Of course, if our academic friends have been busy beavering away writing patents on it, then it will be a much harder sell to management.  But that is another post.

 

Good Morning, NOLA. Pass Me Some Advil.

The math of Bourbon Street is painfully evident this morning. 1 Hurricane = 1 hangover. The sliders with the hot peppers didn’t help, either. I should probably start thinking about chemistry again. Bourbon Street is a very naughty place. The prospect of beads can cause ordinarily prudent people to expose their anatomy. A fellow can get into serious trouble here.

Speaking of pain, I’m reminded of a recent dinner conversation with an astrophysicist. This fellow is a senior player in the astrophysics circuit. He has been involved in the development and use of many “science packages” that are now hurtling through the vacuum of space.

Like physicists often do, he took delight in reminding me that chemistry is derived from physics. When asked why a chemist was interested in astronomy, I blurted out that I thought there was a goodly bit of chemistry happening in the universe and much for a chemist to try to understand. Between bites of beef medallions and the chomping of his bearded jowls, he shot a patronizing glance over his glasses at me and suggested that it was all ultimately physics. 

Ah, a reductionist! Not wanting to make a scene, I let this comment float into the ether where it belonged. But I would offer that if one had a headache and needed to wait for a physicist to invent and make some aspirin, you’d still be waiting.

NOLA ACS

Th’ Gaussling is heading for fabulous New Orleans, LA, to that gathering of eagles we call the National ACS Meeting. It’s an extravaganza. Chemistry overlords and underlings awkwardly walking about in their wrinkled dress-up clothes.  Undergrads on their first professional trip, lugging plastic bags loaded with trade show trinkets.  It’s an orgy of PowerPoint presentations disclosing all of the latest “firsts” and “remarkable” results. 

The National ACS meeting is a harmonic convergence of the illustrious grandees of the First Tier of universities together with those perched in lesser stations.  Th’ Gaussling, a 2nd rate molecule merchant, will be staying within hurling distance of Bourbon Street.  NOLA is a place where it is still cool to play the tuba.  Ya gotta love a place like that.

NIH Manditory Open Access

According to C&EN, the NIH has issued a rule that publications resulting from NIH funded research be submitted to PubMed Central for posting.  Naturally, organizations with copyright interest in published research is  less than enthused by this ruling.

What has happened over the last century is that a sizeable publishing industry has grown up around the publication of periodicals specializing in scientific research.  In exchange for release of copyrights, authors get free or nominally priced access to publishing and distribution of their work. For their part, publishers tap into a continuous stream of refreshed content that is virtually free of charge. 

Counterbalancing the low cost of content are the sad facts of subscriptions.  Many (most) journals suffer from low distribution numbers, so the zero cost of content helps to keep overhead down, but publishing and distribution costs cannot benefit from the economy of scale.

The special interests seem to be sitting in watchful waiting, but they have raised the issue of copyright. Their concern is that they are being forced to distribute their property by the strong arm of NIH without the chance for reimbursement.  This could resolve to a property rights battle and as such, I can’t imagine that the NIH would prevail in the courts.

Descriptive Inorganic Chemistry

Now that I am doing a fair amount of inorganic synthesis and preparation of metal coordination complexes, I look back to my undergraduate education and wish that it had been somewhat different.

In my undergrad time in the early 80’s, inorganic texts were heavy in theoretical concepts- molecular spectroscopy, ligand field theory, and group theory. It made for a tidy textbook package and coursework was constructed around it.  I cannot speak for other institutions, but in my experience the inorganic curriculum is (was) somewhat leaner in course options than is organic or biochemistry. In particular, the inorganic lab experience was somewhat less endowed with resources than the more popular biochemistry lab.

In graduate school, our graduate level inorganic coursework was even more theoretical than was the undergrad coursework. Obviously, there is a good argument for this and I am not actually complaining about it. But I will say that, in my experience, descriptive inorganic chemistry in the lecture section was sacrificed by the professors apparent preference for the elegance and tidiness of theoretical inorganic chemistry.

To his credit, my undergrad inorganic professor did try to give us the best lab experience possible. We had a vacuum line and did have the chance to use it. We did a prepn of AlI3 a tube furnace. We prepared Cu2(OAc)4 and a few other complexes.  He was also a glass blower  and did his best to teach us a bit about glass.

But in the end, the department was much more highly invested in organic and biochemistry. I was enchanted by synthetic organic chemistry and continued down that track.

With the benefit of hindsight, I now see that the curriculum that I was channeled through was too lean with respect to the rest of the periodic table.  Decriptive and  preparative inorganic chemistry was wedged in only by virtue of the strength of the professors interests and personality. Theoretical inorganic chemistry does not require expensive laboratory facilities.

So, I have come out to speak in favor of more descriptive inorganic chemistry in the curriculum.  More reaction chemistry. More preparation of materials in the lab. More characterization of or reaction products. More experience with setting up reactions and isolations.  More experience with hazardous materials!!

The notion that laboratory experiences for chemistry majors must be constrained by the need for Green consideration is nonsense.

I believe that microscale equipment for chemistry majors should be banned. Students should minimally prepare a few grams of materials so that they can be handled for subsequent purification and characterization. Forcing inexperienced students to prepare a spatula tip of product is unfair and needlessly harsh.

The idea that constraining a junior or senior to preparing less than 100 mg of product in a reaction is somehow green and worthy of merit is absolutely ridiculous. This is chemistry lab, not church camp.  The savings in environmental insult is minimal. There are much bigger fish to fry than this anyway. 

I suspect that equipment expenses and waste costs for university chemistry departments are drivers in what is chosen for the lab experience. If indeed efforts are being thrown on better instrumental experiences rather than better preparatory experiences, then I would say that we are missing the point. Given the creeping featurism in computer controlled instrumentation, I would suggest that monies be spent on better synthetic experiences than on the latest hyphenated instrument. 

Perhaps someone could comment on this.

Herr Doktor Professor

According to the March 10, 2008 issue of C&EN, a number of US PhD scientists working at Max Planck are facing charges for illegal use of the title “Dr.” According to the article, the title Dr is reserved for graduates of EU universities. From C&EN-

According to German criminal law, the title “Dr.” is reserved only for individuals who received a doctoral degree from a European Union institution, explains Erik Kraatz, a criminal lawyer at the Free University, Berlin. Kraatz notes that the law also prohibits masquerading as a police officer, medical doctor, or professor.

Indeed, to legally use the title “Dr.” in Germany, foreign-trained scientists must request permission from their local German state government. With this state-level consent, they can use the title “Dr.” anywhere in the country. But without the state’s permission to use the title, a scientist breaks two laws: the state law requiring approval to use the “Dr.” title and the federal impersonation law, Kraatz says.

Breaking the state law is punishable with a fine akin to that associated with a traffic ticket. However, breaking the federal law is punishable by a larger fine or up to one year in jail, Kraatz adds.

This is a very hard-core, nanny-state policy to apply to an honorific. Golly. To avoid trouble with Interpol, I’ll make sure to change my business cards and my email lest I be mistaken for a physician wannabe.  Heavens.  We don’t want that. \;-)

Hopefully someone in the German legislature will propose a reform for this ridiculous law.

Scattered Bits and Bobs

No rest for the wicked. I have been requested and required by the boss to attend the ACS meeting in NOLA.  Lots to get done before departure.  I’ll have to get my liver conditioned for a visit to the French Quarter.

I have been using the thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA) for fun and profit lately. It is quite useful in solving certain kinds of problems in process development.  Of course, if we attached a chain it might make a dandy boat anchor too.  Just kidding … mostly.

Lots of chemistry is presently under development in the USA. It is premature to concede the future of technology development to Asia just yet.  There are lots of companies struggling to get their new technologies to market- I see this every day. This is in stark contrast to news of the tragic comedy on Wall Street. It is important to remember that the stock market is only one of many indicators of economic vitality.  It seems to me that the current maelstrom is based on negligent banking practices, not industrial weakness.

Back to the hood. Gotta ice the trap on the vac line.

Platinum Group Metals Update

14 March, 2008. As the deepening US gravity well continues to tug at the recession asteriod that is looming ever larger in the sky, we see a steady line of investors boarding Platinum Group Metal (PGM) investment vehicles for immediate launch off this doomed planet. 

Monday and friday opening EIB prices over the week of 3/10/08 thru 3/14/08.

Silver–  US$19.70/toz;  US$20.77/toz.

Gold–  US$971.55/toz;  US$1,0005.86/toz

Palladium–  US$470.00/toz;  US$516.00/toz

Platinum–  US$1,960.00/toz;  US$2,110.00/toz

The geology of PGM deposits is quite interesting. There are numerous resources detailing the Bushveld Igneous Province (or Complex) in South Africa. Check it out.