Category Archives: Science

My Favorite Reaction

C&EN recently published an article on the favorite reactions of several bloggers. It was the result of an open call for favorite reactions by the C&EN blog in celebration of IYC. Naturally, I missed this call for submissions.

I would’ve offered the biosynthesis of squalene oxide and cyclization to lanosterol as my favorite reaction. The domino assembly of phosphorylated terpenoid precursors and the penultimate cyclization with the hydride and methide migrations is a thing of beauty. To make a fused hydrocarbon ring system in aqueous media as complex as the steroid nucleus with all of the stereocenters landing in place as they do is a true wonder of nature!

Th’ Gausslings 15th Epistle to the Bohemians. The career arc.

My working life has been extremely stressful for as long as I can remember. A mirthess steampunk factory of angst and unworkable puzzles against a backdrop of uncollegial passive-aggression. But like most sciency mid-career people, I wear golden handcuffs that hold me back from making a clean break.  After years of manning the bilge pumps to keep the place working at maximum capacity, people get tired and inflexible. Minor infractions of protocol project to large images of disrespect and imagined malfeasances that burn into the internal viewing screen of our minds.

I write this blog in part as a means of passing along things I’ve gleaned over time from circumstances and people.  Today I have peers who are VP’s of research at some major corporations. Because of the sort of place I chose to align with, my progress will not keep up with these friends. This is the result of the deal I made with the devil years ago. That deal was the result of chosing a location over an organization. The folly of this is now only too apparent and must serve as an example to be passed along.

It is ever so important to be choosy about with whom you sign on and even more important, who you choose to spend your best years with. It is easily possible to commit to corporate beings who demand 110 %, but fail to reciprocate the dedication.  Power is in the ability to commit resources. In the business world all manner of things, brilliant or outrageous, are justified by the intonement of the words “business is business”. In the minds of many, this mantra justifies all.

I’m always amazed at how easy it is to don the corporate armor and strut around like a peacock.  I did a bit of it myself for a short period after I became a sales manager. But after a month reality threw a bucket of cold water on that fantasy when I realized that power is truly in the hands of people who sign the checks. It always has been. Sales people are a particular breed selected from the herd at large for their goal oriented drive and constant urge to prove themselves. 

The chemical business is conservative and socially constipated for the most part. It is nothing like the Silicon Valley paradigm where production is presented as a form of play time.  I’m sure it really isn’t, but it is a great recruitment meme. 

In business, there are wagon drivers and there are scouts. I’ve come to realize that I am a scout. I love riding into the brush looking for a path. Others are better adapted at coaxing the oxen to pull the wagons. 

Business isn’t quite the meritocracy that it is often projected to be. Business demands the adoption of certain kinds of behaviors around the alpha dogs.  People land in positions of leadership for all kinds of reasons and sometimes under the most unlikely circumstances.  Helpful attributes include singlemindedness, focus on the bare essentials of moneymaking, an engaging personality, and a knack for landing on your feet. Aggressive behavior and a bit of psychopathic ambition are helpful.

The fact of power is the act of power.  People early in their careers should strive to understand how power is accumulated and used. Even if you are disinclined to swing the stick around, it helps to understand it.

Get your resumes out

Get your resumes out and polish ’em up. NASA is lookin’ fer Astronauts. And while you’re at it, take some time to polish up that laconic, aw shucks, Stanford PhD’d toothy grin of yours ’cause it’s show time!  Tell ’em about how you’d like nothing more than to strap a solid fuel booster to your ass and light that candle.

Trouble is, we don’t have any hardware to fly. No matter. Just tell ’em Летите я к луне!

El Hierro Subsurface Eruption

The undersea volcano, El Hierro, in the Canary Islands has been in an eruptive phase since October 2011. The volcano is thought to vent approximately 70 meters below the surface. Surface events vary from jacuzzi-like roiling of turbid water to vigorous upwelling rising many meters above the ocean surface.

The blog Eruptions over on Wired is keeping close tabs on this event as it unwinds.

It is worth pointing out that a volcanic occurrence like this, in addition to land-form building, can also be viewed as a geochemical event. Subsurface eruption of magma comprises the extrusion of fluid rock as well as the injection of gases and solubles into seawater. In the process, water is flashed to steam which adds momentum to the upward convection of the water column from the eruption zone. This causes mixing to occur, tempering the water temperature and dispersing dissolved materials into the currents.

On the release of hazardous energy

What should you do if a raw material for a process is explosive? Good question. Just because a material has explosive properties does not automatically disqualify it for use. To use it safely you must accumulate some information on the type and magnitude of stimulus that is required to give a hazardous release of energy.

But first, some comments on the release of hazardous energy. Hazardous energy is that energy which, if released in an uncontrolled way, can result in harm to people or equipment.  This energy may be stored in the form of mechanical strain of the sort found in a compressed spring, a tank of compressed gas, the unstable chemical bonds of an explosive material, or as an explosive mixture of air and fuel. A good old fashioned pool fire is a release of hazardous energy as well. The radiant energy from a pool fire can easily and rapidly accelerate past the ignition point of nearby materials.

Accumulating and applying energy in large quantities is common and actually necessary in many essential activities. In chemical processing, heat energy may be applied to chemical reactions. Commonly, heat is also released from chemical reactions at some level ranging from minimal to large. The rate of heat evolution in common chemical condensation or metathesis reactions can be simply and reliably managed by controlling the rate of addition of reactants where two reactants are necessary.

There are explosive materials and there are explosive conditions. If one places the components of the fire triangle into a confined space, what may have been conditions for simple flammability in open air are now the components for an explosion. Heat and increasing pressure will apply PV work to the containment. In confinement, the initiation of combustion may accelerate to deflagration or detonation. The outcome will minimally be an overpressure with containment failure. If the contents are capable of accelerating from deflagration to detonation, then loss of containment may involve catastrophic failure of mechanical components.

Rate control of substances that autodecompose or otherwise break into multiple fragments is a bit more tricky. This is the reaction realm of explosives. The energy output is governed by the mathematics of first order kinetics, at least to some level of approximation. In first order kinetics, the rate of reaction depends on both the rate constant and the intitial concentration of one reactant.  Regarding the control of reactions that are approximately first order in nature, some thought should be given to limiting the reaction mass size to that which is controllable with available reactor utilities. A determination of the adiabatic ΔT will give information that will tell you if the reaction will self-heat past the bp of your solvent system.

There is a particular type of explosive behavior called detonation. Detonation is a variety of explosive behavior that is characterized by the generation and propagation of a high velocity shock through a material. A shock is a high velocity compression wave which begins at the point of initiation and propagates throughout the bulk mass.  Because it is a wave, it can be manipulated somewhat. This is the basis for explosive lensing and shaped charges.

Detonable materials may be subject to geometry constraints that limit the propagation of the shock. A cylinder of explosive material may or may not propagate a detonation wave depending on the diameter. Some materials are relatively insensitive to the shape and thickness. A film of nitroglycerin will easily propagate as will a slender filling of PETN in detcord.  But these compounds are for munitions makers, not custom or fine chemical manufacturers. The point is that explosability and detonability is rather more complex than you might realize. Therefore, it is important to do a variety of tests on a material suspected of explosability.

A characteristic of high order explosives is the ability to propagate a shock across the bulk of the explosive material.  However, this ability may depend upon the geometry of the material, the shock velocity, and the purity of the explosive itself. There are other parameters as well. Marginally detonable materials may lose critical energy if the shape of the charge provides enough surface area for loss of energy.  The point is that “explosion” and “detonation” are not quite synonymous, and care must be exercised in their use. The word “detonation” confers attributes that are unique to that phenomenon.

Explosive substances have functional groups that are the locus of their explosibility. A functional group related to the onset of explosive behavior, called an explosiphore (or explosaphore), is needed to give a molecule explosability beyond the fuel-air variety. Obvious explosiphores include azide, nitro, nitroesters, nitrate salts, perchlorates, fulminates, diazo compounds, peroxides, picrates and styphnates, and hydrazine moieties. Other explosiphores include hydroxylamino. HOBt, a triazole analog of hydroxyamine,  hydroxybenzotriazole, has injured people, destroyed reactors and caused serious damage to facilities. Hydroxylamine has been the source of a few plant explosions as well.   It is possible to run a process for years and never cross the line to runaway.

Let’s go back to the original question of this essay. What do you do if you find that a raw material or a product is explosive? The first thing to do is collect all available information on the properties of the substance. In a business organization, upper management must be engaged immediately since the handling of such materials involves the assumption of risk profiles beyond that expected.

At this point, an evaluation must be made in relation to the value of the product in your business model vs the magnitude of the risk. Dow’s Fire and Explosion Index is one place to start. This methodology attempts to quantify and weight the risks of a particular scenario. A range of numbers are possible and a ranking of risk magnitude can be obtained therein. It is then possible to compare the risk ranking to a risk policy schedule generated beforehand by management. The intent is to quantify the risk against a scale already settled upon for easier decision making.

But even before such a risk ranking can be made, it is necessary to understand the type and magnitude of stimulus needed to elicit a release of hazardous energy. A good place to start is with a DSC thermogram and a TGA profile. These are easy and relatively inexpensive. A DSC thermogram will indicate onset temperature and energy release data as a first pass. Low onset temperature and high energy release is least desirable. High onset temperature and low exothermocity is most desirable.

What is more difficult to come to a decision point on is the scenario where there is relatively high temperature onset and high exothermicity.  Inevitably, the argument will be made that operating temperatures will be far below the onset temp and that a hazardous condition may be avoided by simply putting controls on processing temperatures. While there is some truth to this, here is where we find that simple DSC data is inadequate for validating safe operating conditions.

Onset temperatures are not inherent physical properties. Onset temperatures are kinetic epiphenomena that are dependent on sample quality, the Cp of both the the sample and the crucible, and the rate of temperature rise. What is needed once an indication of high energy release is indicated by the DSC is a determination of time to maximum rate (TMS)  determination. While this can be done with special techniques in the DSC (i.e., AKTS).  TMR data may be calculated from 4 DSC scans at different rates, or it may be determined from Accelerated Rate Calorimetry, or ARC testing. Arc testing gives time, temp, and pressure profiles that DSC cannot give and in my mind, is the more information-rich choice of the two approaches. ARC also gives an indication of non-classical liquid/vapour behavior that is useful. ARC testing can indicate the generation of non-condensable gases in the decomposition profile which is good to know.

Other tests that indicate sensitivity to stimulus is the standard test protocol for DOT classification.  Several companies do this testing and rating. There are levels of testing applied based on the result of what the lower series tests show. Series 1 and 2 are minimally what can be done to flesh out the effects of basic stimuli.  What you get from the results of Series 1, 2, and 3 are a general indication of explosabilty and detonability, as well as sensitivity to impact and friction. In addition, tests for sensitivity to electric discharge and dust explosability should be performed as well.

The Gap test, Konen test, and time-pressure test will give a good picture of the ability to detonate, and whether or not any explosability requires confinement. The Konen test indicates whether or not extreme heating can cause decomposition to accelerate into an explosion sufficient to fragment a container with a hole in it.

BOM or BAM impact testing will indicate sensitivity to impact stimulus. Friction testing gives threshold data for friction sensitivity.

ESD sensitivity testing gives threshold data for visible effects of static discharge on the test material. Positive results include discoloration, smoking, flame, explosive report, etc.

Once the data is in hand, it is necessary to sift through it and make some determinations. There is rarely a clear line on the ground to indicate what to do. The real question for the company is whether or not the risk processing with the material is worth the reward. Everyone will have an opinion.

The key activity is to consider where in the process an unsafe stimulus may be applied to the material. If it is thermally sensitive in the range of heating utilities, then layers of protection guarding against overheating must be put in place. Layers of protection should include multiple engineering and administrative layers.  Every layer is like a piece of Swiss cheese. The idea is to prevent the holes in the cheese from aligning.

If the material is impact or friction sensitive, then measures to guard against these stimuli must be put in place. For solids handling, this can be problematic. It might be that preparing the material as a solution is needed for minimum solids handling.

If the material is detonable, then all forms of stimulus must be guarded against unless you have specific knowledge that indicates otherwise. Furthermore, a safety study on storage should be performed. Segregation of explosable or detonable materials in storage will work towards decoupling of energy transfer during an incident.  By segregating such materials, it is possible to minimize the adverse effects of fire and explosion to the rest of the facility.

With explosive materials, electrostatic safety is very important. All solids handling of explosable solids should involve provisions for suppression of static energy. A discharge of static energy in bulk solid material is a good way to initiate runaway decomposition in an energetic material.  This is how a material with a high decomposition temperature by DSC can find sufficient stimulus for an explosion.

Safe practices involving energetic materials require an understanding the cause and effect of stimulus on the materials themselves. This is of necessity a data and knowledge driven activity. Along with ESD energy, handwaving arguments should also be suppressed.

Whither Helium?

A friend from western Pennsylvania was showing me photos from a recent trip to his native land. He was stunned at the extent to which natural gas infrastructure was creeping into the countryside.  Former neighbors and distant cash poor/land rich family members were cashing in the family sod for piles of lucre offered by the gas barons.  All aboard the good ship Marcellus. And if you missed that boat, the USS Utica is right behind it.

So,some of the eastern states are full of gas? It makes one wonder if the gas holds much helium?  Helium is very important as most readers of this blog will know. Helium’s low boiling point makes for a useful low temperature thermostat bath for superconductors. Helium sits within nested Dewars in NMR cryostats, quietly bubbling into the atmosphere, where it begins its random walk to the cold vacuum of space.  In exchange for tipping protons in the rotating frame, we send helium atoms back into the cosmos.

Helium supplies were interrupted recently with the maintenance shutdown of a plant in Wyoming.  This square western state also blows gas. Tremendous amounts of it. The sweetening process for all of this gas produces massive amounts of sulfur byproduct. 

It is not uncommon for Th’ Gaussling to sit at the rail intersection in his Colorado town and count rail cars clacking south in the dark of night, all full of molten sulfur from that other square state.  I have counted as many as 85 cars in one train all stencilled with “Molten Sulfur”.  All headed to, I presume, somewhere near the Gulf coast for, perhaps, sulfuric acid production.

I think we users of helium need to be a bit more vocal, or more curious at least, about the strategic reserves of helium. A lot of technology and sevices rely on it.  Has anyone looked at the Marcellus and Utica reserves for helium??

Fulminate- Noun or Verb?

I think it is fair to say that most chemists are familiar with the fact that mercury fulminate, Hg(CNO)2, is a pressure sensitive explosive material. But because only a few of us actually handle such materials, myself not included, thankfully, the history and actual boundaries of safe handling practice are probably somewhat indistinct. Mercury, as the fulminate or the metal, has been applied to the extraction of gold and silver from ore. The former as a primary explosive for blasting compositions, and the latter as a solvent (and possibly a reductant).

In the course of my ongoing studies in historical metallurgy, I have been searching the very earliest history of chemicals and processes related to the extraction of gold and silver. The threads between these two metals in history are closely interwoven and include an extensive list of civilizations, scholars, monarchs, banking institutions, viceroys, scientists, engineers, and chemical technology.

One fascinating thread in the metallurgy of gold and silver is the role of quicksilver. The discovery of native mercury occured independently in Asia, the Iberian penninsula, central Europe, and the American CordilleraCinnabar has been used as a pigment by aboriginal peoples for adornment and decorative purposes back into prehistory.  There is no documentation in written or other form of the sudden discovery of native mercury. The earliest references to metallic mercury are from Pliny, who mentions some curious properties of the substance in relation to gold, namely, that gold was the only substance known to sink in quicksilver, leaving behind the mineral components of the ore floating on the surface.

The invention comprising the use of quicksilver in the refinement of silver is usually attributed to Spanish merchant Bartolomé de Medina in the part of New Spain comprising what is now Mexico. According to the story, Medina was approached by a German known only as “Maestro Lorenzo” who described a process by which ore was treated with sodium chloride (sea salt water) and quicksilver. Medina travels to Mexico and develops what will be come to be known as the Patio process.

The Patio process proves to be a substantial improvement over smelting processes known in Europe at the time and this fact leads to a long term demand for quicksilver in the Americas. According to records from New Spain, for every quintal (100 lbs) of silver extracted, two quintales of quicksilver were consumed in the Patio process. The primary quicksilver mines in operation by the close of the 16th century were Almaden in Spain, Idria in Slovenia, and Huancavelica in Peru.

Over time mercury was used to produce explosives, Fahrenheit‘s thermometer, and antimicrobial preparations. The discovery of mercury fulminate was crucial to the production of detonating caps for mining and bullet cartridges. Unlike NI3, mercury fulminate, Hg(NCO)2, could be isolated and handled, albeit with great care.

The shelves of a chemist (or apothecary) of the late 18th century would have certainly have contained sulfuric acid, nitric acid, numerous salts, sulfur, lime, various extracts and elixirs, caustics, etc.  It was inevitable that one day someone would combine nitric acid, ethanol (“hydrated ethylene”), and a metal or its salt.  This particular admixture of nitric acid and ethanol, to which a metal oxide or other compound was added would produce a mixture whose vigorous ebullition with the evolution of vapors and smoke would be referred to as fulmination. A residuum or precipitate recovered from the mixture came to be known as a fulminate.  The treatment of red mercury oxide with nitric acid and ethanol produced a mercury fulminate. 

Mercury fulminate was discovered by Edward Howard around the year 1800. The details of his work were published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol 90 (1800), pp. 204-238.  The paper can be found at jstor.org and is worth a read. In it Howard describes an experiment wherein he detonates a small quantity of mercury fulminate in a thick glass vessel and notes the relatively small volume of gas produced in the explosive reaction. He also notes the presence of finely divided mercury on the vessel walls.  The reader will notice that Howard fabricated a rudimentary electrical resistance heater as an initiator to stimulate the fulminate into decomposition.

Howard’s attempts to evaluate this fulminate as a new type of gunpowder are also detailed. Howard’s experiments show that the fulminate reliably burst the breech assemby of all of the guns tried, but strangely did not have the ability to propel a ball with the energy of an equivalent quantity of gunpowder. What he learned was that great sensitivity does not necessarily confer high explosive energy.

As an interesting aside, it was later determined by Gay-Lussac, Liebig, and Wöhler that silver fulminate had the same composition as silver cyanate. After much debate, Berzelius was able to introduce the idea of isomerism to settle the matter.

Is this as good as it gets?

I’ve had this notion (a conceit, really) that as someone from industry, I should reach out to my colleagues in academia in order to bring some awareness of how chemistry is conducted out in the world.  After many, many conversations, an accumulating pile of work in ACS activities, and a few visits to schools, what I’ve found is not what I expected. I expected a bit more curiosity about how commerce works and perhaps what life is like in a chemical plant. I really thought that my academic associates might be intrigued by the wonders of the global chemical manufacturing complex and product process development.

What I’m finding is more along the lines of polite disinterest. I’ve sensed this all along, but I’d been trying to sustain the hope that if only I could use the right words, I might elicit some interest in how manufacturing works; that I could strike some kind of spark.  But what I’ve found is just how insular the magisterium of academia really is. The walls of the fortress are very thick. We have our curricula firmly in place on the three pillars of chemstry- theory, synthesis, and analysis. In truth, textbooks often set the structure of courses.  A four year ACS certified curriculum cannot spare any room for alternative models like applied science. I certainly cannot begrudge folks for structuring around that reality.

It could easily be argued that the other magisteria of industry and government are the same way.  Well, except for one niggling detail. Academia supplies educated people to the other great domains comprising society.  We seem to be left with the standard academic image of what a chemical scientist should look like going deeply into the next 50 years. Professors are scholars and they produce what they best understand- more scholars in their own image.  This is only natural. I’ve done a bit of it myself.

Here is my sweeping claim (imagine the air overhead roiled with waving hands)-  on a numbers basis, most chemists aren’t that interested in synthesis as they come out of a BA/BS program. That is my conclusion based on interviewing fresh graduates. I’ve interviewed BA/BS chemists who have had undergraduate research experience in nanomaterials and AFM, but could not draw a reaction showing the formation of ethyl acetate.  As a former organic prof, I find that particularly alarming. This is one of the main keepsakes from a year of sophomore organic chemistry.  The good news is that the errant graduate can usually be coached into remembering the chemistry.

To a large extent, industry is concerned with making stuff.  So perhaps it is only natural that most academic chemists (in my sample set) aren’t that keen on anything greater than a superficial view of the manufacturing world. I understand this and acknowledge reality. But it is a shame that institutional inertia is so large in magnitude in this and all endeavors.  Chemical industry really needs young innovators who are willing to start up manufacturing in North America. We could screen such folks and steer them to MIT, but that is lame. Why let MIT have all the fun and the royalties?  We need startups with cutting edge technology, but we also need companies who are able to make fine chemical items of commerce. Have you tried to find a brominator in the USA lately?

The gap between academia and industry is mainly cultural. But it is a big gap, it may not be surmountable, and I’m not sure that the parties want to mix. I’ll keep trying.