Discovering an article from 2004 which stressed the issues regarding green chemistry, I've wondered how far we have come in the past 4 years. One issue addressed in the article is the financial hassle of switching technologies. As Dr. Hill mentioned in one of my CHEM 350 classes, the cost of changing is too expensive and therefore is not industrial useful.
However some positive changes have been accomplished. One chemical company, Engelhard Organic Pigments, has developed greener scientific techniques for pigment development. Now they have incorporated the use of Group 2 metals, such as calcium, strontium, and barium, in synthesis instead of using heavier metals such as cadmium, chromium (IV), and lead. Looking in to the chemistry of this greener method, the only solvent used is water and since they are made in an aqueous medium, the polychlorinated intermediates are not exposed as easily as they are in the heavy metal process. Several color pigmentations developed by Engelhard have been approved by the FDA. Hopefully we can soon refrain from completely relying on using heavy metals as a source for pigmentation formations.
http://www.greenchemex.org/?module=resources.edit&id=11&fs=1
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-11-21-green_x.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Unfortunately the article and Dr. Hill are right, cost is severely hindering the implementation of greener methods of production for almost any industry. The current stimulus package had the opportunity to change this and overcome many of the cost issues associated with switching to greener processes, and can provide short term jobs and long term energy savings. It will be interesting to see the degree to which this economic crisis helps or hurts the green movement.
Post a Comment