I read Sandra's blog first, as I am really interested in her question! She talked about the differences and advantages of conventional farming as compared to organic farming. She essentially concluded that both sides have their drawbacks and that neither method is really better than the other. I didn't previously know that organic farmers often use large amounts of their natural pesticides, as that could indeed be just as harmful as chemical pesticides. It makes me rethink seeking out the organic foods at the supermarket! However, I still wonder about the different growing methods affect consumer health.
In Rick's blog, I read about combustion reactions in car engines. I like how he managed to connect chemistry with physics in his explanation of the Otto cycle, which I before only vaguely understood. Now, instead of a hazy visual idea of car engines, it's very concrete. I also learned that, even with ethanol, gasoline in cars is incredibly inefficient at only 20% efficiency. That's crazy. I can see that his research will tie into mine as we discuss better ways to save and produce usable energy.
On Ryan's blog, he talked about growth hormones in cows and their effects on the animals. Apparently, the hormones used in commercial cows were only lightly tested by the FDA, leading to doubts from critics about their safety. The hormone, rBGH, may lead to death in cows from mastitis or a higher risk of cancer due to heightened insulin growth factor-1. Moreover, it creates a dependence that, after injections stop, lowers the milk production below original levels. The questions about safety for cows makes me wonder about the true safety for humans!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
What are the most green companies, and what makes them so environmentally friendly?
As the threats of global warming and peak oil become more apparent, 'green' has become a buzzword in the media. We hear about 'going green' all the time, and companies have started to advertise their green practices. However, it all tends to sound idealistic and nebulous instead of specific and practical. So, I got to asking- what are companies really doing to make their businesses and practices sustainable? Can we see the effects of green chemistry in our lives now?
First, we must answer, what can companies do now? Much of green chem is theoretical and far from application, but there are still ways to effectively green a company. Foremost is the use of alternative or biofuel to cut back on fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas production. Also, they can purchase carbon credits for their electricity (as can you!). Though they still get the same electricity as before, they can pay to offset the electricity made with fossil fuels. More specifically to industry, companies can reduce solvents and hazardous catalysts in production and find ways to reduce wastes, either by redesigning the process or by reusing the waste products.
Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies, created an entire program for green chem, the first of its kind in the pharmaceutical industry, to "develop sustainable, environmentally sound and cost effective processes" (1). They actively redesigned their processes to avoid wastes. In production of Lyrica, a drug treating pain from diabetes and shingles, they avoided 5 million gallons of solvent per year and over 150 tons of a nickel catalyst. With Vfend, an antifungal drug, they reduced waste by 25,000 tons per year by using innovative and advanced chemistry: "an ultra-efficient synthesis of a key intermediate; and the development of a novel, highly selective coupling reaction" (1). In previous years, they've won awards for applying green chem to Viagra and Zoloft, and currently, they're working on a reagents guide to select more environmentally friendly reactants in their production. They even have a separate 'green buildings' program to make their facilities more efficient! By actively working to reduce their company's footprint, they cast a hopeful light over an industry known for its hazardous waste.
Very close to us, Hercules also has been doing work to make their company more environmentally friendly, adopting a 'zero harm' goal. They recently created an adhesive free of hazardous formaldehyde made with soy flour and their own polymer chemistries. For those efforts, they won a Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award for "Development and Commercial Application of Environmentally Friendly Adhesives for Wood Composites" (2). For a company right down the road, it's exciting to learn that they, too, actively want to reduce hazards and help their industry toward a sustainable future.
Granted, much of this work remains in chemical companies with a not-so-hidden purpose to increase shareholder value. However, influential steps, no matter the intentions, are still influential, and using new chemistry in chemical companies is the most logical beginning. We can understand parts of their innovations with our chemistry knowledge, especially as we learn to use sometimes-dangerous solvents and catalysts in our own labs. And after working too long by a fume hood, we can certainly appreciate advances made to reduce worse hazards in industry!
[1] "Green Chemistry Program." Pfizer. 2008. 2 Feb. 2008.
[2] "Hercules Receives Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award." Hercules. 26 June 2007. 2 Feb. 2008.
[3] "The Green 50." Inc.Com. 2008. 11 Feb. 2008
First, we must answer, what can companies do now? Much of green chem is theoretical and far from application, but there are still ways to effectively green a company. Foremost is the use of alternative or biofuel to cut back on fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas production. Also, they can purchase carbon credits for their electricity (as can you!). Though they still get the same electricity as before, they can pay to offset the electricity made with fossil fuels. More specifically to industry, companies can reduce solvents and hazardous catalysts in production and find ways to reduce wastes, either by redesigning the process or by reusing the waste products.
Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies, created an entire program for green chem, the first of its kind in the pharmaceutical industry, to "develop sustainable, environmentally sound and cost effective processes" (1). They actively redesigned their processes to avoid wastes. In production of Lyrica, a drug treating pain from diabetes and shingles, they avoided 5 million gallons of solvent per year and over 150 tons of a nickel catalyst. With Vfend, an antifungal drug, they reduced waste by 25,000 tons per year by using innovative and advanced chemistry: "an ultra-efficient synthesis of a key intermediate; and the development of a novel, highly selective coupling reaction" (1). In previous years, they've won awards for applying green chem to Viagra and Zoloft, and currently, they're working on a reagents guide to select more environmentally friendly reactants in their production. They even have a separate 'green buildings' program to make their facilities more efficient! By actively working to reduce their company's footprint, they cast a hopeful light over an industry known for its hazardous waste.
Very close to us, Hercules also has been doing work to make their company more environmentally friendly, adopting a 'zero harm' goal. They recently created an adhesive free of hazardous formaldehyde made with soy flour and their own polymer chemistries. For those efforts, they won a Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award for "Development and Commercial Application of Environmentally Friendly Adhesives for Wood Composites" (2). For a company right down the road, it's exciting to learn that they, too, actively want to reduce hazards and help their industry toward a sustainable future.
Granted, much of this work remains in chemical companies with a not-so-hidden purpose to increase shareholder value. However, influential steps, no matter the intentions, are still influential, and using new chemistry in chemical companies is the most logical beginning. We can understand parts of their innovations with our chemistry knowledge, especially as we learn to use sometimes-dangerous solvents and catalysts in our own labs. And after working too long by a fume hood, we can certainly appreciate advances made to reduce worse hazards in industry!
[1] "Green Chemistry Program." Pfizer. 2008. 2 Feb. 2008
[2] "Hercules Receives Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award." Hercules. 26 June 2007. 2 Feb. 2008
[3] "The Green 50." Inc.Com. 2008. 11 Feb. 2008
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
It's a Blog Refinery!
More and more, I'm finding cool research as it relates to reducing and reusing - or even reimagining - waste products. As the Green Chemistry Network's December newsletter points out, we should view waste as a resource rather than as a problem. This focus immediately can split into two categories: reducing and reusing, and the chemistry behind both. It's nice that GCN has a whole newsletter about these ideas, and I've also been finding pretty ample resources everywhere I've looked (check out my new links!) Previously I'd considered all the information to be disparate, as each article focused on different green products and processes. With these two overarching goals, I'm finding plentiful connections!
In terms of reusing wastes, researchers seem to be really creative. From using food waste as a preservative to making black paint from metal sludge, the ideas span lots of interesting examples. I could consider refining my topic just to this category, and focusing on a few of these examples if I find that I'm too spread out.
Reducing waste seems be more technical and specific, focusing on things like changing the process of tanning leather and using water as a solvent rather than synthetics. If anything, this is a slight bit harder to research, as it's a bit more subtle as an idea, and it's usually intertwined with reusing. Still, I'm generally finding good information here, as well.
In terms of reusing wastes, researchers seem to be really creative. From using food waste as a preservative to making black paint from metal sludge, the ideas span lots of interesting examples. I could consider refining my topic just to this category, and focusing on a few of these examples if I find that I'm too spread out.
Reducing waste seems be more technical and specific, focusing on things like changing the process of tanning leather and using water as a solvent rather than synthetics. If anything, this is a slight bit harder to research, as it's a bit more subtle as an idea, and it's usually intertwined with reusing. Still, I'm generally finding good information here, as well.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Reliability
When researching, I often find sources with obvious bias and slant, or else simply false information. It happens less and less as I've come to discern the difference between sites, but with the nature of the internet, I still get tripped up. After all, even the most reliable sites can be hacked, or more often, contain errors. However, I've found some pretty solid ways to ID sites that won't usually steer you off.
First off, check the top-level domain, or the .org, .edu, .com, etc. at the end of the site name. Usually, you can trust .edu and .gov sites- both are limited to educational and government sites, respectively. These cover five of my linked sites, so you can tell I really love finding them. Otherwise, .org sites can be misleading, as they're actually open to anyone. I've found many a good source at such sites, but they deserve a bit more care overall. Similarly, .com and .net sites, as well as pretty much everything else, can contain reliable info, but you need to look closer.
If it doesn't pass the domain name test, it's time to look for a source within the site. To start off, many .org sites obviously show you who they are. acs.org, for example, is the American Chemical Society, and rsc.org is the Royal Society of Chemistry, two rather strong sources. I also find off-shoots of their sites; the Green Chemistry Network at chemsoc.org is also from the RSC. I also list .net, .com, and a .ca (for Canada, of course) on my links, and all similarly display their credentials. For example, I found that Tel Aviv University has a nice blog with some chem news, and that the University of York has gone as far as making their site greenchemistry.net. And the Canadian one? Why, that's the Canadian chapter of ACS's Green Chemistry Institute, of course!
Overall, I generally feel safe with university sites and national organizations when it comes to science research. Still, especially with a topic so prevalent and recently popular, I have to watch out for some bias everywhere. I tend to stay away from opinion pieces and stick to the more factual information.
Oh, and Wikipedia? Yes, I use it, especially for the quick fact here and there. But more often, it's great to link me to better resources. I think my favorite thing is the little External Links section at the end! After all, while it may be easily edited by the internet at large, those links are usually quite a lot harder to get at.
First off, check the top-level domain, or the .org, .edu, .com, etc. at the end of the site name. Usually, you can trust .edu and .gov sites- both are limited to educational and government sites, respectively. These cover five of my linked sites, so you can tell I really love finding them. Otherwise, .org sites can be misleading, as they're actually open to anyone. I've found many a good source at such sites, but they deserve a bit more care overall. Similarly, .com and .net sites, as well as pretty much everything else, can contain reliable info, but you need to look closer.
If it doesn't pass the domain name test, it's time to look for a source within the site. To start off, many .org sites obviously show you who they are. acs.org, for example, is the American Chemical Society, and rsc.org is the Royal Society of Chemistry, two rather strong sources. I also find off-shoots of their sites; the Green Chemistry Network at chemsoc.org is also from the RSC. I also list .net, .com, and a .ca (for Canada, of course) on my links, and all similarly display their credentials. For example, I found that Tel Aviv University has a nice blog with some chem news, and that the University of York has gone as far as making their site greenchemistry.net. And the Canadian one? Why, that's the Canadian chapter of ACS's Green Chemistry Institute, of course!
Overall, I generally feel safe with university sites and national organizations when it comes to science research. Still, especially with a topic so prevalent and recently popular, I have to watch out for some bias everywhere. I tend to stay away from opinion pieces and stick to the more factual information.
Oh, and Wikipedia? Yes, I use it, especially for the quick fact here and there. But more often, it's great to link me to better resources. I think my favorite thing is the little External Links section at the end! After all, while it may be easily edited by the internet at large, those links are usually quite a lot harder to get at.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Looking through these links...
Well, I found the links I have listed through some rushed Googling and searching on Wikipedia, but most of them seem rather worthwhile. I wondered whether there would be enough specific information on the internet, as green chemistry's a fairly new and broadly defined subject. Indeed, I'm finding a lot of diverse material, but it's plentiful enough that I think I can narrow my topic yet further. There's a lot of work being done in materials, like making use of environmentally-friendly solvents in pharmaceuticals and making greener rubber for sneakers. As I continue reading news and information, I'm hoping I can find a thread to connect the disparate concepts, or at least a category on which I can focus.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Alternate ideas?
Well, Ms. V's post said to think of at least three topics if we weren't absolutely certain of our choices. I may have made my blog all green and such, but who knows! SO. Three alternate ideas:
1) Something involving physical chemistry. It's essentially what happens when you get past atoms into subatomic particles, and it offers the chemistry side of quantum physics. I just don't know what aspect of it I'd like to look at!
2) And then Thanksgiving got me thinking. People say baking is chemistry, and that's why it's so precise. I could look at that, what reactions typically take place in those ovens, and what chemicals contribute to better tasting foods. Possibly very subjective, but also very tasty!
3) I might take the nanotech slant, and look at the possible impact of new materials. It all contributes so much to modern and future technology, and could be fun to research.
1) Something involving physical chemistry. It's essentially what happens when you get past atoms into subatomic particles, and it offers the chemistry side of quantum physics. I just don't know what aspect of it I'd like to look at!
2) And then Thanksgiving got me thinking. People say baking is chemistry, and that's why it's so precise. I could look at that, what reactions typically take place in those ovens, and what chemicals contribute to better tasting foods. Possibly very subjective, but also very tasty!
3) I might take the nanotech slant, and look at the possible impact of new materials. It all contributes so much to modern and future technology, and could be fun to research.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Thinking of topic ideas
I'd like to look at chemistry as it relates to the environment and greener products, sometimes called green chemistry. For example, researchers at Yale have created a gel form of carbon dioxide, providing a less expensive and more environmentally friendly solvent and lubricant for industry. It applies new research to helping our world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
