Non-stick toilets, synthetic poo and saving the environment

141 billion litres of water are used to flush toilets every day.

Scientists develop slippery toilet coating that stops poo sticking,” shouted newspaper headlines last week, naturally prompting comments about the state of politics, the usual arguments about the ‘right’ way to hang toilet paper rolls, and puns of varying quality.

There was also more than one person asking WHY, given everything going on at the moment, scientists are spending their time on something which seems, well, not terribly urgent. After all, ceramic toilet bowls are already quite slippery. Toilet brushes exist. We have a myriad of toilet cleaning chemicals. Surely there are higher priorities? Attempting to deal with looming environmental disaster, say?

But here’s the thing, from an environmental point of view, flush toilets are quite significant. If you’re fortunate enough to live somewhere they’re ubiquitous it’s easy to take them for granted, but consider this: flushing even a water-efficient toilet uses at least five litres of water (much more for older models, a bit less if you use a ‘half-flush’ function). Often this is perfectly clean water which has been through water treatment, only to be immediately turned back into, effectively, sewage. Now imagine you have something a bit… ahem… sticky to flush. What do you do? You flush the toilet twice. Maybe more. You break out the toilet brush and the bottle of toilet cleaner, and then you probably flush at least one extra time to leave the bowl clean.

Using toilet cleaning chemicals often results in extra flushes.

Consider that the average person uses the toilet about five times and day and multiply up by the population and, even just in the UK, we’re looking at billions of litres of water daily. Globally, it’s estimated that 141 billion litres of fresh water are used daily for toilet flushing, and in some homes it could account for a quarter of indoor wastewater production. That’s a lot of fresh water we’re chucking, quite literally, down the toilet.

It rains a fair bit in the U.K. so, except for the occasional dry summer, Brits aren’t in the habit of worrying too much about water supply. The opposite, if anything. But we need to change our ways. In a speech in March this year, Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, warned that the U.K. could run into serious water supply problems in 25 years due to climate change, population growth and poor water management.

Even putting those warnings to one side, treating water uses energy and resources. Filters are used which have to be cleaned and replaced, chemical coagulants and chlorine (usually in the form of low levels of chlorine dioxide) have to be added. Sometimes ozone dosing is used. The pH of the water needs to be checked and adjusted. All of these chemicals have to be produced before they’re used to treat the some 17 billion litres of water that are delivered to UK homes and businesses every day. And, of course, the whole water treatment process has to be continuously and carefully monitored, which requires equipment and people. None of this comes for free.

So, yes, saving fresh water is important. Plugging leaks and using water-saving appliances is vital. And, given that everyone has to go to the toilet several times a day, making toilets more efficient is potentially a really significant saving. An super non-stick toilet surface could mean less flushing is needed and, probably, fewer cleaning products too — saving chemical contamination.

Fresh water is a valuable resource.

The new super-slippery surface was co-developed by Jing Wang in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Michigan. It’s called a liquid-entrenched smooth surface (LESS) and is applied in two stages. First, a polymer spray, which dries to form nanoscale hair-like strands. The second spray completely covers these ‘hairs’ with a thin layer of lubricant, forming an incredibly flat, and very slippery, surface. The researchers tested the surface with various liquids and synthetic faecal matter and the difference — as seen in the video on this page — is really quite astonishing.

Hold up a moment, synthetic faecal matter? I’ll bet no one embarking on an engineering degree ever imagines that, one day, they might be carefully considering the make-up of artificial poo. But actually, when you think about it, it’s quite important. Quite aside from safety aspects and the sheer horror of the very idea, you couldn’t use the real thing to test something like this. You need to make sure it has a carefully-controlled consistency, for starters. It’s the most basic principle, isn’t it? If you want to test something, you have to control your variables.

Artificial poo is surprisingly important.

Indeed, there’s even a scale. It’s called the Bristol stool scale, and it goes from “hard” to “entirely liquid”. Synthetic poo is a mixture of yeast, psyllium, peanut oil, miso (proof, if it were needed, that miso really does improve everything), polyethylene glycol, calcium phosphate, cellulose and water. The amount of water is adjusted to match different points on the Bristol scale. Aren’t science and engineering fun?

Anyway. Back to the non-stick technology. This new surface can be applied to all sorts of materials including ceramic and metal, and it repels liquids and ‘viscoelastic solids‘ (stuff that’s stretchy but also resists flow: apart from poo, PVA slime is another example) much more effectively than other types of non-stick surfaces. In fact, the researchers say it’s up to 90% more effective than even the best repellent materials, and they estimate that the amount of water needed to clean a surface treated in this way is 10% that needed for ordinary surfaces. They were also able to show that bacteria don’t stick to LESS-coated materials, meaning that even if untreated water is used to flush a toilet, it remains hygienic without the need for extra chemicals.

The potential to cut 141 billion litres of water by a factor of ten is not to be (I’m sorry) sniffed at. Plus, in some areas, ready supplies of water and the facilities to clean toilets just aren’t available. Using LESS could, potentially, reduce the spread of infection.

By Chemystery22 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31161897 A graft copolymer has side chains branching off the main chain — these side chains are the “hairs” described by the researchers.

So what IS this surface treatment made of? This information wasn’t widely reported, but it seems quite important, not least because applications of LESS are estimated to last for about 500 flushes, which suggests that re-application will be needed fairly regularly and, perhaps more worryingly, whatever-it-is is passing into the wastewater supply.

Not surprisingly, there’s a certain amount of vagueness when it comes to its exact make-up, but I did find some details. Firstly, it’s what’s known as a graft polymer, that is, a polymer chain with long side chains attached — these are the “hairs” described by the researchers.

Secondly, the polymer strands are based on polydimethylsiloxane, or PDMS. This may sound terrifying, but it’s really not. PDMS (also known as dimethicone) is a silicone — a compound made up of silicon, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen. These compounds turn up all over the place. They’re used contact lenses, shampoos, and even as food additives. Oh, and condom lubricants. So… pretty harmless. In fact, they’re reported as having no harmful effects or organisms or the environment. The one downside is that PDMS isn’t biodegradable, but it is something that’s absorbed at water treatment facilities already, so nothing new would need to be put in place to deal with it.

The problem of better toilets might be more urgent than you thought.

Finally, the lubricant which is sprayed over the polymer chains in the second stage of the treatment to make the surface “nanoscopically smooth” (that is, flat on a 1 billionth of a metre scale) is plain old silicone oil, which is, again, something with a low environmental impact and generally considered to be very safe.

As always with environmental considerations it’s about choosing the least bad option, and using these coatings would certainly seem to be a far better option than wasting billions of gallons of precious fresh water.

In short, silly headlines aside, it turns out that making toilets better might be quite an important problem. Maybe it’s time to rage against the latrine.


Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter. Content is © Kat Day 2019. You may share or link to anything here, but you must reference this site if you do. If you enjoy reading my blog, please consider buying me a coffee through Ko-fi using the button below.
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Refilling bottles: why it may not be as simple as you thought

Two years or so ago most of us had given relatively little thought to single-use plastics. We bought things, we used things, we put the packaging in the bin. Possibly the recycling bin. Hopefully the right recycling bin. And we thought no more about it.

Then Blue Planet II aired on BBC One, specifically episode 7, and suddenly everyone was obsessed with where all this plastic was ending up. Rightly so, since it was clearly ending up in the wrong places, and causing all sorts of havoc in the process.

People started buying reusable cups, eschewing plastic straws and demanding the option of loose fruit and vegetables in supermarkets. Wooden disposable cutlery, oven-cook food containers, and bamboo straws became increasingly common.

And people started to ask more questions about refilling containers. Why do I need a new bottle each time I buy more shampoo or washing up liquid or ketchup, they asked. Why can’t we just refill the bottle? For that matter, couldn’t I take a container to the shop and just… fill it up?

Infinity Foods allow customers to refill containers.

Shops started to offer exactly that. One such place was Infinity Foods, based in Brighton in the UK. Actually, they’d always taken a strong line when it came to recycling and reducing waste, and had been offering refills of some products for years.

Where this gets interesting from a chemistry point of view is a Facebook post they made at the beginning of this month. It said, from the 1st of November, “your empty bottle can only be refilled with the same contents as was originally intended. This includes different brands and fragrances.”

Naturally this spawned lots of comments, many suggesting the change was “daft” and saying things like “I bet it is major corporations not wanting us to reuse the bottle.

Infinity Foods argued that they were tightening up their policy in order to comply with legislation, specifically the Classification, Labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and others.

This post, and the comments, got me thinking. I’m old enough, just, to remember the days when random glass bottles were routinely filled with random substances. You wandered into the garage (it was always the garage) and there’d be something pink, or blue, or green, or yellow in a bottle. And it might have a hand-written label, and it might not, and even if it did, the label wasn’t guaranteed to actually be representative of the contents. The “open it and sniff” method of identification was common. The really brave might take their chances with tasting. Home-brew wine might well be next to the lawnmower fuel, and if they got mixed up, well, it probably wouldn’t be fatal.

Probably.

Bottles may be single-use, but they’ve also been designed to be as safe as possible.

You know, I’m not sure we ought to be keen to go back to that, even if it does save plastic. Sealed bottles with hard-to-remove child safety caps, nozzles that only dispense small amounts (making it difficult if not impossible to drink the contents, by accident or otherwise) and accurate ingredients lists are, well, they’re safe.

And we’ve all grown used to them. Which means that now, if I pick up a bottle, I expect the label to tell me what’s in it. I trust the label. If I went to someone else’s house and found a bottle of, say, something that looked like washing up liquid by the sink, I’d assume it was what the label said it was. I wouldn’t even think to check.

You might think, well, so what? You fill a bottle, you know what’s in it. It’s up to you. But what about all the other people that might come into contact with that bottle, having no idea of its origins? What if a visitor has an allergy to a particular ingredient? They look at the label, check it doesn’t contain that ingredient, and use it. Only, someone has refilled that bottle with something else, and maybe that something else does contain the thing they’re allergic to.

Even simpler, someone goes to a shop that sells refills, fills a hair conditioner bottle with fabric softener and doesn’t think to label it. They know what it is, right? They leave it in the kitchen, someone else picks up that bottle, and takes it into the shower. They get it in their eyes and… maybe it causes real harm.

Toilet cleaner must never be mixed with toilet bleach.

Then there are the very real hazards associated with mixing chemicals. One that always worries me is the confusion between toilet cleaner and toilet bleach. Many people have no idea what the difference is. The bottles even look quite similar. But they are not the same substance. Toilet cleaner is usually a strong acid, often hydrochloric acid, while toilet bleach contains sodium hypochlorite, NaClO. Mixing the two is a very bad idea, because the chemical reaction that occurs produces chlorine gas, which is particularly hazardous in a small, enclosed space such as a bathroom.

Okay, fine, toilet bleach and cleaner, noted, check. Is anyone selling those as refills anyway? Probably not. (Seriously, though, if you finish one bottle, make sure you don’t mix them in the toilet bowl as you open the next.)

But it may not be as straightforward as that. Have you ever used a citrus-scented cleaning product? They can be quite acidic. Combine them with bleach and, yep, same problem. What if someone refilled a container that contained traces of a bleach cleaner with one that was acidic, not realising? Not only would it be harmful to them, it could also be harmful for other people around them, including employees, especially if they suffer from a respiratory condition such as asthma.

There are risks associated with the type of container, too. Some plastics aren’t suitable to hold certain substances. Infinity Foods themselves pointed out that some people were trying to find drinking water bottles and plastic milk bottles with cleaning products. These types of bottles are usually made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE). This type of plastic is a good barrier for water, but not oily substances and solvents. Cleaning products could weaken the plastic, resulting in a leak which would be messy at best, dangerous at worst. That’s before we even think about the (un)suitability of the cap.

The type of plastic used to make water bottles isn’t suitable to hold oily substances.

Plus, think of the poor salesperson. How are they supposed to judge, in a shop, whether a particular bottle is safe for a particular product? I wouldn’t feel at all confident about that decision myself. It’s not even always easy to identify which plastic a bottle is made of, and that’s before you even start to consider the potential risks of mixing substances.

In fact, the more you think about it, the more Infinity Foods’ policy makes sense. If you say that you can only refill a bottle with the exact same substance it originally contained, and you insist that the labels have to match, well, that’s easy to check. It’s easy to be sure it’s safe. Yes, it might mean buying a bottle you wouldn’t have otherwise bought, but if you’re going to reuse it, at least it’s just the one bottle.

These concerns all arise from wanting to make sure the world is a safer and healthy place. We do need to cut down on single-use plastics, but taking risks with people’s health to do so surely misses the point.


Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter. Content is © Kat Day 2019. You may share or link to anything here, but you must reference this site if you do. If you enjoy reading my blog, please consider buying me a coffee through Ko-fi using the button below.
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

How are amber teething necklaces supposed to work?

Do amber beads have medicinal properties?

Amber, as anyone that was paying attention during Jurassic Park will tell you, is fossilised resin from trees that lived at least twenty million years ago (although some scientists have speculated it could be older). It takes the form of clear yellow through to dark brown stones, seemingly warm to the touch, smooth and surprisingly hard. It is certainly beautiful. But does it also have medicinal properties? And if it does, are they risk-free?

In 2016 a one year-old boy was found dead at his daycare centre in Florida. The cause of death was a necklace, which had become tangled and tightened to the point that he was unable to breathe.

Why was he wearing a necklace? Surely everyone knows that babies shouldn’t wear jewellery around their necks where it could so easily cause a terrible tragedy like this? No one needs a necklace, after all – it’s purely a decorative thing. Isn’t it?

Yes. Yes, it is. However, this particular type of jewellery was specifically sold for use by babies. Sold as a product that parents should give their children to wear, despite all the advice from medical professionals. Why? Because this jewellery was made from amber, and that’s supposed to help with teething pains.

Teething is a literal pain.

Anyone whose ever had children will tell you that teeth are basically a non-stop, literal pain from about 4 months onward. Even once your child appears to have a full set, you’re not done. The first lot start falling out somewhere around age five, resulting in teeth that can be wobbly for weeks. And then there are larger molars that come through at the back somewhere around age seven. Teenagers often find themselves suffering through braces and, even when all that’s done, there’s the joy of wisdom teeth still to come.

It’s particularly difficult with babies, who can’t tell you what hurts and who probably have inconsistent sleep habits at the best of times. Twenty sharp teeth poking through swollen gums at different times has to be unpleasant. Who could blame any parent for trying, well, pretty much anything to soothe the discomfort?

Enter amber teething necklaces. They’re sold as a “natural” way to soothe teething pain. They look nice, too, which I’m sure is part of their appeal. A chewed plastic teething ring isn’t the sort of thing to keep in baby’s keepsake box, but a pretty necklace, well, I’m sure many parents have imagined getting that out, running their fingers over the beads and having a sentimental moment years in the future.

Amber is fossilised tree resin.

So-called amber teething necklaces are made from “Baltic amber,” that is, amber from the Baltic region: the largest known deposit of amber. It is found in other geographical locations, but it seems that the conditions – and tree species – were just right in the Baltic region to produce large deposits.

Chemically, it’s also known as succinite, and its structure is complicated. It’s what chemists would call a supramolecule: a complex of two or more (often large) molecules that aren’t covalently bonded. There are cross-links within its structure, which make it much denser than you might imagine something that started as tree resin to be. Baltic amber, in particular, also contains something else: between 3-8% succinic acid.

Succinic acid is a dicarboxylic acid.

Succinic acid is a much simpler molecule with the IUPAC name of butanedioic acid. It contains two carboxylic acid groups, a group of atoms we’re all familiar with whether we realise it or not – because we’ve all met vinegar, which contains the carboxylic acid also known as ethanoic acid. If you imagine chopping succinic acid right down the middle (and adding a few extra hydrogen atoms), you’d end up with two ethanoic acid molecules.

Succinic acid (the name comes from the Latin, succinum, meaning amber) is produced naturally in the body where it is (or, rather, succinate ions are) an important intermediate in lots of chemical reactions. Exposure-wise it’s generally considered pretty safe at low levels and it’s a permitted food additive, used as an acidity regulator. In European countries, you might see it on labels listed as E363. It also turns up in a number of pharmaceutical products, where it’s used as an excipient – something that helps to stabilise or enhance the action of the main active ingredient. Often, again, it’s there to regulate acidity.

Basically, it’s mostly harmless. And therefore, an ideal candidate for the alternative medicine crowd, who make a number of claims about its properties. I found one site claiming that it could “improve cellular respiration” which… well, if you’ve got problem with cellular respiration, you’re less in need of succinic acid and more in need of a coffin. Supposedly it also relives stress and prevents colds, because doesn’t everything? And, of course, it allegedly relieves teething pains in babies, either thanks to its general soothing effect or because it’s supposed to reduce inflammation, or both.

Purporters claim succinic acid is absorbed through the skin.

The reasoning is usually presented like this: succinic acid is released from the amber when the baby wears the necklace or bracelet and is absorbed through the baby’s skin into their body, where it works its magical, soothing effects.

Now. Hold on, one minute. Whether this is true or not – and getting substances to absorb through skin is far less simple than many people imagine, after all, skin evolved as a barrier – do you really, really, want your baby’s skin exposed to a random quantity of an acidic compound? Succinic acid may be pretty harmless but, as always, the dose makes the poison. Concentrated exposure causes skin and eye irritation. Okay, you might say, it’s unlikely that an amber necklace is going to produce anywhere near the quantities to cause that sort of effect, but if that’s your logic, then how can it also produce enough to pass through skin and have any sort of biological effect on the body?

The answer, perhaps predictably, is that it doesn’t. In a paper published in 2019, a group of scientists actually went to the trouble of powdering Baltic amber beads and dissolving the powder in sulfuric acid to measure how much succinic acid they actually contained. They then compared those results with what happened when undamaged beads from the same batches were submerged in solvents, with the aim of working out how much succinic acid beads might conceivably release into human skin. The answer? They couldn’t measure any. No succinic acid was released into the solvents, at all. None.

Scientists submerged Baltic amber beads in solvents to see how much succinic acid they released.

They concluded that there was “no evidence to suggest that the purported active ingredient succinic acid could be released from the beads into human skin” and also added that they found no evidence to suggest that succinic acid even had anti-inflammatory properties in the first place.

So amber necklaces don’t work to relieve teething pains. They can’t. Of course, there could be a sort of placebo effect – teething pain is very much one of those comes-and-goes things. It’s very easy to make connections that just aren’t there in this kind of situation, and imagine that the baby is more settled because of the necklace, when in fact they might have calmed down over the next few hours anyway. Or maybe they’re just distracted by the pretty beads.

And, fine. If wearing the jewellery was really risk-free, then why not? But as the story at the start of this post proves, it is not. Any kind of string around a baby’s neck can become twisted, interfering with their breathing. Most necklaces claim to have some sort of “emergency release” mechanism so that they come apart when pulled, but this doesn’t always work.

Don’t fall for the marketing.

Ah, goes the argument. But it’s okay, because we only sell bracelets and anklets for babies. They don’t go around the baby’s neck. It’s completely safe!

No. Because I don’t care how carefully you make it: the string or cord could still break (especially if it’s been chewed), leaving loose beads to pose a serious choking hazard. Not to mention get jammed in ears or nostrils. Even if you’re with the baby, watching them, these sorts of accidents can happen frighteningly quickly. Letting a baby sleep with such an item is nothing short of asking for disaster, and no matter how good anyone’s intentions, babies do have a habit of dozing off at odd times. Will you really wake the child up to take off their bracelet? Every time?

In summary, don’t fall for the marketing. Amber necklaces may be pretty, but they’re not suitable for babies. The claims about succinic acid are completely baseless, and the risks are very real.


Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter. Content is © Kat Day 2019. You may share or link to anything here, but you must reference this site if you do. If you enjoy reading my blog, please consider buying me a coffee through Ko-fi using the button below.
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

The UK’s Unlikely System of Units

The novel Good Omens was first published in 1990. And this is my original copy.

Unless you’ve been asleep for the last few months (if so, are you a snake, by any chance….?) you will have noticed that there’s recently been a very popular television adaptation of the much-loved book by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman: Good Omens.

I have always loved this book, and I love the TV show even more. Obsessed? Erm. Anyway. Can I wring a science-themed post for my blog out of a story about a demon and an angel saving the world from Armageddon? Of course I can.

Here goes. There’s a moment in the second episode of the TV adaptation* when the demon, Crowley, is driving his Bentley very, very fast, and the angel, Aziriphale, says: “You can’t do ninety miles an hour in central London!”

This caused a bit of confusion for some non-British viewers§. Not the idea that you can’t, or at least shouldn’t, drive extremely fast in a built-up area, but rather the fact that Britain is a European country, isn’t it? At least, for the moment. Don’t the Europeans use the metric system? Shouldn’t he have said one hundred and forty-five kilometres per hour?

So you thought Brits used the metric system? Haha.

I mean, okay, we do. Scientists in particular are quite keen on it. But we also use imperial units really quite a lot. And coincidently, this all arose just after the politician Jacob Rees-Mogg issued a style guide to his staff declaring that they must “use imperial measurements” — which at first sounds typically Victorian of Rees-Mogg, but actually… if your aim is to at least try to be consistent, he might, just might, have a point…

Allow me to try to explain.

Firstly, a little clarification: the “metric system” is an internationally-recognised decimalised system of measurement, that is, a system where units are related by powers of ten. I stress this because “metric” and “decimal” do not mean quite the same thing, which is relevant when it comes to money. The metric system takes base measurements — kilograms, metres and so on — and says that all versions of those measurements can only be connected by powers of ten, and must not introduce new conversion factors. So, grams (1000th of a kilogram) and tonnes (1000 kilograms) are both metric, but a pound (0.454 of a kilogram) is not. Scientists know this as the SI system of measurements. Okay? Right. Let’s get on to the amusing cocktail of units the British have to cope with in their every day lives…

Britain loves inches.

Length
The length of small-ish objects is measured in centimetres and millimetres. Sometimes. Except the diameter of pizzas, the sides of photos and photo frames, and the diagonal of laptop screens and televisions — all of which are almost always given in inches. Screws, as in woodscrews, are often given in  fractions of inches. Let’s not get into jewellery, for that way madness lies.

Longer objects are measured in metres and centimetres, except for the height of people, which is almost always quoted in feet and inches. Chippies (that is carpenters, not people that cook fish and chips — keep up) tend to colloquially use feet and inches for planks of wood. For example, “I need a bit of six by nine” — meaning a piece of wood 6 feet long and 9 inches thick.

What do you mean, how do you know which one is 6 and which one is 9? You’d hardly have a 9 ft piece of wood that was only 6 inches thick, would you?

People do sometimes use metres for short walking distances, e.g. “it’s fifty metres to the shops”, however Brits also like to use yards, a yard being 3 feet. But that’s okay, because a yard is close enough to a metre as to make little difference to a casual walking estimate, so they’re pretty interchangeable.

Marathons are measured in miles. Shorter road races use kilometres.

The sorts of distances involved in lengthy travel are always measured in miles. The distance from Oxford the city to Oxford Street in London, for example, is about 55 miles. No British person would ever describe this as 88.5 km. Speed, as we saw in Good Omens, is thusly described in miles per hour (mph). For the record, the speed limit in a built-up area such as Oxford Street would normally be 30 mph, or sometimes (more and more frequently) 20 mph. Crowley was indeed driving ridiculously fast, but then, he has demonic magic to help him avoid both pedestrians and police.

Miles are also used for marathons. However, not for shorter running races, which are often described as “5k” or “10k” meaning, obviously, 5 kilometres or 10 kilometres. The cynics may wonder whether this is because 5 kilometres sounds longer than 3 miles, but I’m sure runners aren’t concerned about such vanities.

Is all of that clear? Okay, let’s move on…

Weight
Weight (physicists: I mean mass, yes, you’re very clever, shhh now) of people is measured in stones and pounds (there are 14 pounds in a stone). Except for babies, which are little and are therefore measured in pounds, because everyone knows a baby ought to weigh somewhere in the region of 7 pounds or so, and if you quote a baby weight in kg, Brits have no idea whether to gasp, coo, or wince sympathetically.

The weight of food is mostly measured in kilograms and grams (or possibly grammes; it’s essentially the same thing) these days, although a lot of people still favour pounds and ounces. This leads to oddities, such cake recipes which call for 225 g of butter (half a pound). There are, by the way, 16 ounces in a pound, because it would be far too easy if it were consistent with the pounds/stones thing, wouldn’t it. Oh, and Brits have quarter pounder beefburgers in restaurants — none of that ‘Royale with cheese‘ business for us, thanks.

Larger weights are mostly quoted in tonnes, because that’s easy, but sometimes we use tons as well, which has the added amusement of sounding exactly the same when you say it out loud. 1 tonne is about 1.1 tons, so it’s not too much of a problem unless you’re planning a really big building project. Very large amounts are sometimes given in hundredweight, which sounds metric, doesn’t it? It’s not. A hundredweight is 50.8 kg, or 112 pounds. Did you think it would be 100? Yes, well, there are reasons.

Once again, let’s not get into jewellery. If we start on carats we’ll be here all day.

Beer, blood and milk are measured in pints.

Volume
Small volumes of liquids tend to be measured in millilitres or (particularly for wine) centilitres. The exceptions are beer, blood and milk — which are given in pints. Wandering into a British pub and asking for half a litre of beer is guaranteed to cause everyone to stop what they’re doing and stare at you. As will asking for pint of blood, for different reasons.

Larger volumes are measured in litres. We’ve mostly given up on gallons, now that all the fuel stations quote their prices in pence per litre because it looks cheaper that way.

Chemists like to be awkward, though, and use cubic centimetres — written cm3 or occasionally cc just for fun — for small volumes of liquids, and dm3 (cubic decimetres) for litres. 1 cm3 is 1 ml and 1 dm3 is 1 litre, so there’s really no reason for any of this other than to confuse students.

Temperature
Temperatures are mostly quoted in Celsius (aka centigrade, well, more-or-less), and most Brits these days have a fairly good feel for that scale. But Fahrenheit still gets rolled out when either a person or the air gets hot. A midsummer’s day might reach ‘100 degrees’ (that is, a little under 38 oC) and someone with a fever might also be described as ‘having a temperature of over a hundred’. Once it gets chillier, however, we’re firmly back to Celsius, because ‘minus five’ sounds a lot more dramatic than 23 oF.

In case you’re wondering, no, I did not choose this particular picture of a thermometer by accident.

In case you thought you were on safe ground here, don’t forget there’s also Kelvin (where 0 oC = 273 K) which is the SI unit of temperature and very popular with physicists. And, if you’re cooking, the mysterious ‘gas mark‘ — which is more-or-less unique the U.K. and which is based on some sort of occult formula. (Gas mark 6 is about 200 oC or 400 38 oF.)

Energy
Energy is measured in Joules. Except when it comes to food, where it’s measured in calories. Actually, kilocalories, but everyone just calls them calories. There’s meant to be a capital C to help tell the difference, but no one ever remembers. This is all fine.

Pressure
Are you sure you want to go here? Okay. FINE.

Tyre pressures are quoted in pounds per square inch, that is, PSI. Most British car owners can probably tell you roughly what their tyre pressures ought to be in PSI, even if (having learned metric at school) they have a somewhat shaky grasp of what either inches or pounds are.

Atmospheric pressures are usually quoted in atmospheres, because everyone knows what that means (sea level is one atmosphere, give or take). Of course, that’s not the SI unit, which is Pascals: 1 atmosphere is 101,325 Pascals, which is a bit unwieldy, so scientists often use bars, where 1 bar is 100,000 Pascals, and thus 1 atmosphere is more-or-less 1 bar, which, for once, is sort of helpful (no, really).

Blood pressure is usually quoted in mmHg

But then there’s also Torr, which arises from the historical practice of using mercury to measure pressure. 760 Torr is 1 atmosphere, while 1 Torr is 133.32 Pascals. Blood pressure, of course, was traditionally measured with a mercury sphygmomanometer, but just in case you thought you were on top of this, 1 Torr is nearly, but not quite, the same as the measurement in that case, which is mmHg, 1 of which is equal to 1.000000142466321 Torr.

Money
British money is decimal (but not metric, for the reasons described back at the start there), but only became so in 1971. If Rees-Mogg has his way I’m sure we’ll be back to pounds, shilling and pence before we know it.

It’s all your fault, isn’t it, Crowley?

In summary….
Since no one in this country is going to give up miles any time soon, if you want to be consistent about units it makes a certain kind of sense to insist on sticking to imperial, I suppose. As much sense as imperial measurements make anyway, which is not much.

You do have to wonder how we ended up with such a confusing mixture of measurements. It’s almost… demonic….


* Page 51 of the original print edition, second line up from the bottom. Obsessed? No idea what you mean.
§ And possibly non-British readers of the book in the 1990s, but Twitter didn’t exist then, so any puzlement went largely unnoticed. It was a quieter time.
would# you? I don’t bloody know. Apparently it’s obvious.
# or, indeed, wood.


Escape Artists Podcasts are brilliant and you should download and listen.

Would you like to listen to the lovely Alasdair Stuart and me natter on about how utterly brilliant Good Omens is, and all the clever little things we spotted in the show for about an hour or so? Of course you would! It’s part of the premium content bucket at the EA Podcasts Patreon. Please do consider supporting Escape Artists podcasts; they produce truly brilliant fiction podcasts on a weekly basis. If you’ve never heard of them (where have you been?) why not subscribe to their free podcasts: Podcastle (fantasy), Pseudopod (horror), Escape Pod (science fiction) and Cast of Wonders (young adult).


Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter. Content is © Kat Day 2019. You may share or link to anything here, but you must reference this site if you do. If you enjoy reading my blog, please consider buying me a coffee through Ko-fi using the button below.
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Element Tales: A Meandering Stroll Around 118 Elements

On 7th Feb this year Mark Lorch, a chemist and science communicator at the University of Hull, had the idea to start an element association game. Could a determined bunch of Twitter chemists find a path through all 118 elements of the periodic table in honour of Periodic Table Day and the International Year of the Periodic Table?

It turned out that they could! #ElementTales started with mendelevium, and meandered — avoiding a few forks — all the way to gadolinium. Some of the links are funny, some are tenuous, and a lot refer to fascinating bits of chemistry trivia.

It seemed a shame not to preserve the final thread somehow. Each of the entries below is headed with a link to the original tweet — just in case you’d like to find, and follow, the thread yourself.

Without further ado, we present to you…

A meandering stroll around 118 elements

@Mark_Lorch
Hey folks! Who’s up for an element association game for in . The rules: I’ll start with an element, you reply with a story/factoid that links it to another element and so on… No repeats!

An atom of Mendelevium, atomic number 101 (from Wikimedia Commons)

@Mark_Lorch
It’s only fitting to start with number 101 Mendelevium

@Sciencenotscary
Mendeleev designed the first periodic table, which contains every other element, including <spins random number generator> #52, tellurium <blink> I swear that was random.

@Stare_at_Air
That feels a bit like cheating! But tellurium was first discovered in gold ore from Zlatna (a Romanian town named after the Slavic term for gold).

@RyeSci
Gold is one of those lovely elements known to the ancients with a symbol accordingly, Au. My favourite of those is Mercury, Hg from Hydrargyrium or liquid silver Hg.

@chronicleflask
Mercury has a v low MP because its electronic config, [Xe] 5d10 6s2, has all full shells — so it doesn’t form the +ve metal ions & delocalised electrons bonding system as other metals. Also quantum. Zn (zinc) has a low MP for the same reason.
(Side note: see this article for more info on mercury’s liquidity https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/relativity-behind-mercurys-liquidity/6297.article)

@allisontau
Zinc is element 30. Zinc rhymes with sink. If your kitchen sink is broken you call a plumber. Plumbers are called plumbers after plumbum, the Latin word for the element lead (Pb), because the Romans used lead to make pipes.

@Mark_Lorch
Lead in Greek is μολυβδος – Molyvdos which gives use the name of element 42, molybdenum.

bacteria@chronicleflask
Molybdenum-containing enzymes are found in bacteria: the simplest and oldest of the living organisms. Living organisms on planet Earth have carbon-based biology. (Time for some non-metals, I thought!)

@Stare_at_Air
This could be taken in so many directions based on carbon‘s chemistry, but I’ll ruin it — carbon reminds me of “Carboniferous”, which sounds like it should have something to do with iron (it doesn’t).

@sciencenotscary
Iron is in the same column of the periodic table as ruthenium, which usually means it should have similar reactivity and chemical behaviour, but it turns out iron is actually completely useless as a catalyst and will not get you a PhD.

@SuperScienceGrl
I’ve had a couple of people mistake my cat’s name, RuPhos, for something to do with ruthenium – it really isn’t, it’s a phosphorus ligand.

@Mark_Lorch
Phosphorus was first extracted from urine by Hennig Brandt in 1669. Later is was discovered that bone is calcium phosphate, which made for a ready supply to feed the match industry.

@David_S_Bristol
Calcium and phosphorous combine in bone along with a substantial amount of magnesium. ~60% of magnesium in the body is in bone. It is essential for a healthy skeleton and reduced magnesium is linked to osteoporosis.

@Stare_at_Air
Magnesium is a key component of Grignard reagents. Grignard shared his Nobel Prize with Sabatier, who in turn received it for his method of hydrogenating organic compounds. Hydrogen.

@drdelusional
Hydrogen, the lightest element, forms the majority of the mass of the Universe. This odorless and tasteless gas combines with Fluorine to result in hydrogen fluoride, a highly reactive acid.
(Side note: corrosive, not (especially) reactive.)

@WildCation
Electronegativity generally increases from left to right across a period, and generally decreases from top to bottom. Fluorine is the most electronegative element on the Pauling electronegativity scale. The LEAST electronegative element is (probably) caesium.

@chronicleflask
Ooh, ooh: Robert Bunsen (he of the burner) and Gustav Kirchhoff discovered two alkali metals, cesium and rubidium, in 1860.

@Stare_at_Air
Rubidium is one of several elements named after a colour (in this case the red lines seen in the emission spectrum), but chromium is associated with so many different colours it’s just named after the Greek word for colour, χρῶμα.

@Mark_Lorch
Amongst the Terracotta warriors were found what appears to be chrome (chromium) plated bronze swords. The alloy was mostly copper and tin, but also contained magnesium, nickel and cobalt.

@sumants
Cobalt is named from ‘kobold’, German for ‘goblin’. This comes from German miners – who were harvesting (cobalt) blue pigments – naming ores ‘goblin ores’ due to the effects of arsenic poisoning when the ores were smelted.

@WildCation
The use of Scheele’s Green, a popular green arsenic-based pigment, caused poisonings in the 19th century from its use in wallpaper, candles, even food. Similarly, in the 1920s, the “Radium Girls” developed cancer from painting watch faces with radium-based pigment.

@Mark_Lorch
Radium was discovered by Marie and Pierre Curie when they extracted it from Uraninite ore. From the same ore they extracted another element which they initially called radium-F. Later Marie renamed if after her home country – Poland. Giving us … Polonium.

@Stare_at_Air
I think the f-block is feeling a bit unloved, so let’s go from the elements that the Curies discovered (Polonium) to the one named after them. Curium.

@ndbrning
Curium is (possibly) the heaviest naturally occurring element (see here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-018-0190-9). The other possible candidate is plutonium.

@Stare_at_Air
Plutonium was indirectly named by a child (the name Pluto for the planet was suggested by an 11-year-old girl). The only other element named by a child is neon, suggested by Ramsay’s son.

@Mark_Lorch
William Ramsay (neon) was also the first person to isolate helium. Prior to this is was known to exist from the spectra of the Sun. Hence the element’s name from Helios… Helium.

@DrMLHarris
Inhaling helium makes your voice squeaky. What happens if you inhale xenon? Researchers at a prestigious US lab decided to find out. Turns out, “heavier than air”=”too heavy for lungs to expel”. The experimenter’s life was saved when he stood on his head.
(Side note: watch what happened when Dr Bunhead of Brainiac tried the same thing.)

@FioraAeterna
Xenon is a really unusual element. In fact, it’s the only pure element that is also a general anesthetic! Yet it’s an unreactive noble gas. Weird, huh? For weird reasons, both Xenon and Argon are now on the anti-doping banned chemicals list.

@Stare_at_Air
People are often surprised to find that the third most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere is Argon. Perhaps similarly surprising is that the third most abundant element in the universe as a whole (at least as far as we know) is oxygen.

@Mark_Lorch
Oxygen is a paramagnetic. If you condense some (it’s a beautiful pale blue liquid) and then place a neodymium magnet above the surface the oxygen jumps up onto the magnet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKVt27SUR0&feature=youtu.be&t=91

@sumants
Neodymium was originally mined as a twinned material known as didymium. Carl Auer von Welsbach fractionally distilled didymium to isolate neodymium (new twin) and the other “green twin”, praesodymium.

@Stare_at_Air
“Green twin” in Greek (πράσινος and δίδυμος) is the base for the name of praseodymium — meanwhile “green twig” in Greek (θαλλός) is the base for the name of thallium, after the bright green spectral line used to identify it.

@sumants
Thallium was extremely popular as a poison in the early 20th century, but it’s mostly banned today. As a rat poison, it worked because it inhibited proteins that contained cysteine, an amino acid that contains… Sulphur.

@ndbrning
Sulfur
is responsible for the tarnishing of silver. The black tarnish is silver sulfide, caused by the metal’s reaction with small amounts of hydrogen sulfide in the air.

@Mark_Lorch
To clean your silver spoons put them in hot water with bicarb of soda & aluminium foil. The bicarb removes the aluminium oxide layer. This leaves the aluminium free to react with the silver sulfide, giving aluminium sulfide & clean silver.

@Stare_at_Air
What is still often called “tin foil” is nowadays almost always made from alumin(i)um. But it used to be made exclusively from tin until the early 20th century (first Al foil came around in 1910, but it took a few decades for it to replace Sn foil).

@sciencenotscary
Tin has two allotropes, a metallic one and a powder. It converts to the powder at Russian-winter temperatures. Napoleon’s troops had tin buttons on their jackets, which then wouldn’t close, and they died of exposure. Russia is the home of Dubna. Dubnium.

@ndbrning
One of the originally proposed names for Dubnium was Nielsbohrium, after Danish nuclear physicist Niels Bohr. Though this proposal wasn’t accepted, Bohr did eventually get an element named after him: element 107, bohrium.

@sumants
One of the two groups to have claimed discovery of bohrium in 1976 was led by Soviet scientist Yuri Oganessian, in whose honour we now have… Oganesson.

@robcarrphoto
Only 5 to 6 atoms of Oganesson have ever been detected. Originally thought to be a gas, computational chemistry revealed it would be a solid due to relativistic effects. Special & General Relativity were discovered by Albert Einstein, for whom Einsteinium was named.

@Stare_at_Air
Einstein (Einsteinium) famously developed his theory of relativity while working at the patent office. The first element to be patented was Americium.

@Mark_Lorch
Americium is created by bombarding uranium or plutonium with neutrons. It was first made by Seaborg (from Berkeley) in 1944 as part of the Manhattan project. Soooo many ways to go from here, but I’m going with… Seaborgium.

@Stare_at_Air
Shortly after the ACS announced 106 to be Sg (Seaborgium) in 1994, resolved not to allow names based on living people. Until it gave way about a year later, the IUPAC name for 106 was rutherfordium. In 1997, this name was instead assigned to element 104… Rutherfordium.

@chronicleflask
Rutherfordium was named after Ernest Rutherford, prob. most famous for the Rutherford atomic model developed after Geiger & Marsden’s gold foil expt. But he also carried out research into nuclear reaction bet. nitrogen & alpha particles.

@sciencenotscary
Nitrogen is usually thought of as being mostly inert an unreactive, until you make it an azide. Sodium azide is what inflates your car’s airbag in time to stop your head smacking the steering wheel.

@Mark_Lorch
After my grandpa died I helped clear his flat, over the years he had stashed various chemicals including 1/2kg of Na (sodium), KCN & conc HCl. To this day I shudder to think what might have been if I hadn’t been there to stop my family chucking it all down the sink. Chlorine.
(Side note: read more about that story here http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/04/18/chemical-nostalgia-my-grandfathers-lethal-legacy/)

@robcarrphoto
In organic chemistry lab, we used a lot of HCl (chlorine) of organic reactions, making salts, etc. But when I think of the Chemistry building, I think of bromine. The building smelled like bromine. The set of Beilstein books smelled like bromine.

@Mark_Lorch
Two of the elements stink. Bromine means “stench” and osmium means “smells”.

@ndbrning
Osmium is used in an alloy to make the tips of fountain pens hard and wear-resistant. In the past, iridium was used for this purpose, and sometimes the tipping material is still referred to as ‘iridium’ despite the element’s absence.

@Stare_at_Air
Not only was iridium discovered in the residue from trying to dissolve (impure) platinum, but Pt-Ir alloys are very useful, being both hard and chemically stable. The prototype kilogram is made of Pt-Ir, though a new definition of the kg comes in in May.

@sumants
The Pt-Ir (platinum) alloy was also used to make the prototype meter bar, which was replaced by a measure based on an electron transition within a Kr-86 atom. Krypton.

@sumants
While we’re going on about defining lengths, the Kr-86 (krypton) standard also redefined the ångström as 0.1nm, making obsolete the previous reference based on the spectral line of… cadmium.

@ndbrning
Cadmium is used in nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) rechargeable AA batteries. Due to cadmium’s toxicity, their sale has been banned in the EU for most purposes since 2006. They’ve been supplanted by another type of nickel-based battery, nickel metal hydride (NiMH).

@drdelusional
Breithauptite or NiSb (nickel) is a pale copper red colored mineral named after Johann Friedrich August Breithaupt, a Saxon Mineralogist. Antimony.

@chronicleflask
Antimony compounds have been powdered for use in medicine and cosmetics for thousands of years, often known by the Arabic name, kohl. Titanium dioxide is another common additive in makeup and sunscreens.

@Mark_Lorch
Titanium
 causes no immune response, making it an ideal material for implants. However it does slowly corrode in the body. A ceramic made of zirconia (zirconium dioxide) doesn’t suffer from this problem and is now commonly used for dental implants. Zirconium.

@drdelusional
Zirconium alloys are mainly used in nuclear reactors, however these alloys should not contain Hafnium.
(Side note: see this article for more info as to why http://www.iloencyclopaedia.org/part-ix-21851/metals-chemical-properties-and-toxicity/63/zirconium-and-hafnium)

@Stare_at_Air
Hafnium is one of two elements whose name is based on the Latin form of a Scandinavian capital — Hafnia is Copenhagen, while Holmia is Stockholm. Holmium.

@sumants
While working with erbia (grounds for a whole fascinating fork!), Per Cleve isolated two oxides, one which he called holmia (holmium oxide), and the other, thulia, which was identified as thulium oxide. Thulium.

@sumants
Thulium is commonly found in a mineral known as gadolinite, which is named after Johan Gadolin. While it doesn’t have much gadolinium in it, Gadolin wrongly thought a white metal he found in it was aluminium, and not… Beryllium.

@ndbrning
Beryllium is found in the mineral beryl, which emerald and aquamarine are precious forms of. One of the rarest varieties, red beryl, gets its colour from the presence of small amounts of manganese.

@chronicleflask
Manganese is used in REDOX titrations; the colour change from VII (dark purple) to II (pale pink) is very obvious. It’s commonly used to determine the amount of iron present. Another species that turns up in REDOX titrations is iodine/iodide.

@sciencenotscary
Iodine can occur in the form HIO4, periodic acid, which looks like the word for the table we’re talking about but is actually per-iodic. A metallic compound with a very similar electronic structure is perhenate, based on rhenium.

@ndbrning
Rhenium was (possibly) first discovered by Masataka Ogawa in 1908, though he thought he’d discovered element 43, technetium (which wasn’t actually discovered until 1937).

@sciencenotscary
One of only two cis-uranic elements with no stable isotopes, it (technetium) had to be synthesised to be discovered (hence the name). The other one is protactinium.

@ndbrning
The first long-lived isotope of protactinium was discovered by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner in 1917. 80 years later, in 1997, Meitner became one of only 16 scientists to have an element named after them… Meitnerium.

@MrVanOosterhout
Meitnerium was first produced by German nuclear researchers in 1982, who bombarded a bismuth sample with iron ions. A week of bombardment produced a single meitnerium ion, which lasted all of five milliseconds before decaying.

@chronicleflask
The name bismuth dates from around the 1660s, and it’s unclear where it came from, but maybe from Old High German hwiz (“white”). Like water, liquid bismuth is denser than solid, a characteristic it also shares with the element germanium.

@Stare_at_Air
The name germanium proved controversial, sounding like geranium. Jokingly, angularium was proposed, hiding a translated form of the discoverer’s name (Winkler). Lecoq denied doing something similar when naming gallium (Gaul, but also gallus = rooster).

@drdelusional
Gallium is a low melting solid (melting point ~30°C) and it combines with selenium to form Gallium Selenide which finds applications in nonlinear optics.

@sumants
Selenium was identified by Berzelius and Gahn from pyrite found in the Falun mine in Sweden, which is one of the world’s largest repositories of Copper.

@Mark_Lorch
Eight elements were first isolated from rocks quarried in a the small village of Ytterby in Sweden (same country as copper mine). Four of those elements are named in tribute to the village (ytterbium, erbium, terbium, yttrium)… Ytterbium.

@Stare_at_Air
Near the Ytterby (ytterbium) mine is this sign, discussing Gadolin’s work and the elements found there. It talks about a “tung, svart sprängsten” (in this case the black, heavy gadolinite), but it just reminded me of the origin of the name tungsten!

@drdelusional
A compound of Tungsten, Potassium tungsten oxide, is used in solar energy and water treatment applications… Potassium.

@DrMLHarris
Potassium comes in both fermionic and bosonic isotopes, making it ideal for the study of both Bose-Einstein condensation and cold Fermi gases. Lithium also has this property.

@DrMLHarris
The first molecular Bose-Einstein condensate was created in 2003 by pairing up atoms of fermionic lithium-6 (lithium) to make bosonic Li2 molecules. Fermions are, of course, named after the physicist Enrico Fermi, who also has an element named after him... Fermium.

@sumants
Fermium was discovered in the fallout from a nuclear test, as was einsteinium when some filter papers were exposed to the same fallout. The work happened at the University of California, Berkeley, after which place we have… Berkelium.

@sumants
Berkelium is now synthesized mainly in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, after which state, we have Element 117… Tennessine.

@DrMLHarris
Tennessine itself was synthesized at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia. The many contributions of this institute to the Periodic Table were recognized in the name of Element 115… Moscovium.

@sumants
Moscovium naturally underwent alpha emission and created… Nihonium.

DrMLHarris
Nihonium was named after the country where it was discovered, Japan. The discoverers expressed hope that this honour would help the country’s trust in science recover after the meltdown of the reactor at Fukushima, which uses uranium as fuel.

@sumants
Uranium, of course, is named after the planet Uranus. It probably makes sense, then, that its neighbour would be named after the planet’s neighbour, Neptune… Neptunium.

@Stare_at_Air
Despite many previous false claims of having produced element 93, including by Fermi, neptunium was first produced by McMillan and Abelson, at Berkeley Lab (yes, Berkeley again, of course), based in the state of California… Californium.

@sumants
Californium was first synthesized at the Lawrence Berkeley NL, which is named after Ernest Lawrence, after whom we have… Lawrencium.

@Mark_Lorch
Lawrencium is the final member of the actinides. Although it is arguably a member of group 3 along with scandium, yttrium, and lutetium… Scandium.

@sumants
When Mendeleev placed scandium in his periodic table, he had previously predicted its existence, which Per Cleve eventually confirmed. He named it eka-boron, since it would have been similar in its properties to… Boron.

@sumants
Borosil is a brand name that makes borosilicate glass, which is made from a compound oxide of boron and… Silicon.

@DrMLHarris
The A3B group of compounds (A=transition metal, B=anything) wasn’t considered particularly interesting until vanadium silicide, V3Si, (silicon) was found to act as a superconductor at 17K – one of the first Type II superconductors to be discovered… Vanadium.

@chronicleflask
Vanadium is famous for its many colours and oxidation states. The ability to readily change oxidation state makes it a good catalyst, notably for the contact process, used to make sulfuric acid. Another element which is used in catalysis is rhodium.

@ndbrning
Rhodium is used in catalytic converters in cars to remove nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and unburnt hydrocarbons. Other metals used as catalysts in these converters are platinum and palladium.

@DrMLHarris
In 1989 Pons & Fleischmann claimed to have observed cold fusion via electrolysis of heavy water on a palladium electrode. That was false, but controlled hot fusion in tokamaks is real. Tokamaks use superconducting wire made from an alloy of tin and… Niobium.

@sumants
Niobium is named after Niobe from Greek mythology, and unsurprisingly, the next element one period down is named for her father, Tantalus… Tantalum.

@Mark_Lorch
Tantalum is one of those elements that was discovered in the rocks of Ytterby. Which gives its name to 4 elements, including … erbium.

@sumants
Along with ytterbium and erbium, the same rocks near Ytterby also yielded… terbium.

@DrMLHarris
Today’s main source of Terbium, however, is a mineral called bastnasite, which is named after yet another Swedish mine, Bastnas. This mineral is also a major source of… Cerium.

@Stare_at_Air
Cerium is named after Ceres, a dwarf planet hypothesised to contain an ocean of liquid water. A similar ocean is thought to exist inside Europa, the Jovian moon, named after the figure in Greek mythology. Also named after it is Europe… Europium.

@sumants
Europium(III) oxide is used to activate yttrium phosphors, mostly to create red on television and computer screens. Yttrium is also one of the elements to come out of the Ytterby mine.

@sciencenotscary
Like Yttrium, Indium is also used in screens because of its importance as a component of the semiconductor indium tin oxide.

@ndbrning
Radioactive indium ions have been investigated by researchers for their potential use in radiopharmaceuticals for diagnosis and treatment of tumours. Radioactive actinium ions have been investigated for the same purpose.

@mrfarabaugh
Actinium assumes oxidation state +3 in nearly all its chemical compounds. The Ac(III) ion has an electron configuration that is isoelectronic with Radon.

@sciencenotscary
Radon, being inherently radioactive, is a nuisance background for sensitive particle detectors. Another nuisance is thorium.

@Stare_at_Air
Thorium is named after Thor, the Norse god of thunder, on whom characters in many a comic have been based over the years. Prometheus, a Titan from Greek mythology, has also made an appearance in several comics and gives his name to element 61… Promethium.

@Mark_Lorch
Henry Moseley showed that atomic numbers corresponded to a physical property of the elements. Using this he found that some atomic numbers had no known elements: the gaps were 43, 61 (promethium), 72, 75, 85 (astatine), and 87.

@Stare_at_Air
All the group 17 elements up to and including astatine (“unstable”) are named after their properties (Ts ruined it), but many elements in the rest of the table are too. We still have two of these left — one of them is “hard to get” (though stable)… Dysprosium.

@Mark_Lorch
(Dysprosium) And the other is Barium which is derived from mineral baryte in which it is found. This in turn comes from the Greek βαρύς (barys) meaning heavy.

@DrMLHarris
Even heavier than barium, and much harder to obtain due to its half-life of just 22 minutes, the next element has never been observed in bulk, though like the other alkalis it has been laser cooled and trapped. Step up… Francium.

@Mark_Lorch
Marguerite Catherine Perey (a student of Marie Curie) discovered Francium and named if after her home country. France gets another hat tip in the table in the form of Lutecium which is named from the latin for Paris.

@DrMLHarris
(Lutecium) Another Paris-based discoverer was Paul-Émile Lecoq de Boisbaudran. He discovered three elements. Two of them, gallium and dysprosium, have been done already, but the third was… Samarium.

@DrMLHarris
De Boisbaudran is credited as Samarium‘s discoverer, but a different French chemist, Eugène-Anatole Demarçay, actually isolated the pure metal. Demarçay destroyed his eyesight in a chemical explosion. The godfather of explosive chemistry is Alfred Nobel… Nobelium.

@Stare_at_Air
Nobel (Nobelium) may have set up the Nobel prize because he was worried about being remembered for his contribution to developing more effective weapons. Georgy Flyorov also played a role in weapons research, as he encouraged Stalin to start an atomic bomb project… Flerovium.

@DrMLHarris
(Flerovium) The most dangerous isotope in nuclear fallout, the hazards of which helped to persuade the US, UK and Soviet Union to ban above-ground weapons tests, is strontium-90, which is taken up in the bones… Strontium.

@sumants
One of the popular electrode materials in solid oxide fuel cells is LSM, which is a perovskite (ABO3) in which B positions have Mn, and A slots are occupied by strontium and… Lanthanum.

@DrMLHarris
The name “lanthanum” derives from the Ancient Greek for “to lie hidden.” X-rays are also good at revealing hidden things, from broken bones to chemical structures to black holes. They were discovered by Wilhelm Roentgen, who is honoured with Element 111… Roentgenium.

@sumants
Roentgenium was first created at the Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, from which we have… Darmstadtium.

@sumants
Several elements have been synthesized/discovered at the Helmholtz Center, including meitnerium, roentgenium, darmstadtium, bohrium, and… Hassium.

@sumants
(Hassium) I left out one more element synthesized at the Helmholtz Center: Copernicium.

@sumants
(Copernicium) The Helmholtz Center also helped confirm Element 116, which had been created partly in Dubna, and partly at the Lawrence Livermore NL, after which it was named: Livermorium.

@DrMLHarris
(Livermorium) All of these reactors used to discover ultra-heavy elements require good shielding against radioactivity. Because of its high neutron cross section, one of the elements used in shielding is… Gadolinium.

@Mark_Lorch
YEH!!! 👏 🥳 🎉 That was great fun! Thanks for playing! I honestly wondered if that was even doable!
#ElementTales

Periodic Table by Andy Brunning of Compound Interest (click for more)


Special thanks to Andrea Chlebikova (@Stare_at_Air) for keeping track of which elements had and hadn’t been covered as we went along.

You can also read an article about this project, published in Physics World, by Margaret Harris (@DrMLHarris).

Further thanks to: Mark Lorch, Andrea Chlebikova, Andy Brunning, Steve Maguire, Michael Farabaugh, Margaret Harris and Sumant Srivathsan. Follow the Twitter handle links to find these lovely people and give them a follow.

Let’s speed up the rate at which we recognise our female chemists

A little while back now I was researching my post on water when I came across a scientist which I hadn’t heard of before. And that was odd, because this person was one of the first to propose the idea of catalysis, which is a pretty important concept in chemistry, in fact, in science in general. Surely the name should be at least a bit familiar. Shouldn’t it?

And yet it wasn’t, and the more I read, the more surprised I was. Not only was this person clearly a brilliant thinker, they were also remarkably prescient.

Elizabeth Fulhame’s book was first published in 1794 (image by the Science History Institute, Public Domain)

So who was it? Her name was Elizabeth Fulhame, and we know very little about her, all things considered. Look her up and you won’t find any portraits, or even her exact dates of birth and death, despite the fact that her book, An Essay on
Combustion,
was published in more than one country and she, a Scottish woman, was made an honorary member of the Philadelphia Chemical Society in 1810 — remarkable achievements for the time.

As well as describing catalytic reactions for the first time, that book — first published in 1794 and surprisingly still available today — also contains a preface which includes the following:

But censure is perhaps inevitable; for some are so ignorant,
that they grow sullen and silent, and are chilled with horror
at the sight of any thing, that bears the semblance of learning,
in whatever shape it may appear; and should the spectre
appear in the shape of a woman, the pangs, which they suffer,
are truly dismal.

Obviously women are interested in physics. And also, apparently, in staring wistfully into open vacuum chambers whilst wearing unnecessary PPE (stock photos are great, aren’t they?)

Fulhame clearly did not suffer fools gladly (I think I would’ve liked her), and had also run across a number of people who felt that women were not capable of studying the sciences.

Tragically, 225 years later, this attitude still has not entirely gone away. Witness, for example, the recent article featuring an interview with Alessandro Strumia, in which he claimed that women simply don’t like physics. There were naturally a number of excellent rebuttals to this ludicrous claim, not least a brilliant annotated version of the article by Shannon Palus — which I recommend because, firstly, not behind a paywall and secondly, very funny.

Unfortunately, despite the acclaim she received at the time, Fulhame was later largely forgotten. One scientist who often gets the credit for “discovering” catalysis is Berzelius. There is no doubt that he was a remarkable chemist (you have him to thank for chemical notation, for starters), but he was a mere 15 years old when Fulhame published her book.

The RSC’s Breaking the Barriers report was published in 2018

In November last year, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) launched its ‘Breaking the Barriers’ report, outlining issues surrounding women’s retention and progression in academia. As part of this project, they commissioned an interview with Professor Marina Resmini, Head of the Chemistry Department at Queen Mary University of London.

She pointed out that today there is an almost an equal gender split in students studying chemistry at undergraduate level in the United Kingdom, but admitted that there is still much to be done, saying:

“The two recent RSC reports ‘Diversity Landscape of the Chemical Sciences’ and ‘Breaking the Barriers’ have highlighted some of the key issues. Although nearly 50% of undergraduate students studying to become chemists are female, the numbers reaching positions of seniority are considerably less.”

Professor Resmini was keen to stress that there are many supportive men in academia, and that’s something we mustn’t forget. Indeed, this was true even in Fulhame’s time. Thomas P. Smith, a member of the Philadelphia Chemical Society’s organizing committee, applauded her work, saying “Mrs. Fulham has now laid such bold claims to chemistry that we can no longer deny the sex the privilege of participating in this science also.” Which may sound patronising to 21st century ears, but it was 1810 after all. Women wouldn’t even be trusted to vote for another century, let alone do tricky science.

I think I’ve found Strumia’s limousine; it’s bright red, very loud, and can only manage short distances.

Speaking of patronising comments, another thing that Strumia said in his interview was, “It is not as if they send limousines to pick up boys wanting to study physics and build walls to keep out the women.”

This is one of those statements that manages, at the same time, to be both true and also utterly absurd. Pupils, undergraduates, post-grads and post-docs do not exist in some sort of magical vacuum until, one day, they are presented with a Grand Choice to continue, or not, with their scientific career. Their decision to stop, if it comes, is influenced by a thousand, often tiny, things. Constant, subtle, nudges which oh-so-gently push them towards, or away, and which start in the earliest years of childhood. You only need to spend five minutes watching the adverts on children’s television to see that girls and boys are expected to have very different interests.

Textbooks may be studied by girls, but they rarely mention the work of female scientists.

So let’s end with another of Professor Resmini’s comments: that the work of past female scientists deserves greater recognition than it has received. This could not be more true, and this lack of representation is exactly one of those nudges I mentioned. Pick up a chemistry textbook and look for the pictures of female scientists: there might be a photo of Marie Curie, if you’re lucky. Kathleen Lonsdale usually gets a mention in the section on benzene in post-GCSE texts. But all too often, that’s about it. On the other hand, pictures of Haber, J. J. Thompson, Rutherford, Avogadro and Mendeleev are common enough that most chemistry students could pick them out of a lineup.

We should ask ourselves about the message this quietly suggests: that women simply haven’t done any “serious” chemistry (this is not the case, of course) and… perhaps never will?

Online, things have begun to shift. Dr Jess Wade has famously spent many, many hours adding the scientific contributions of women to Wikipedia, for example. It’s time things changed in print, too. Perhaps we could begin by starting the rates of reaction chapter in chemistry texts with a mention of Fulhame’s groundbreaking work.


EDIT: After I posted this, I learned that the Breaking Chemical Bias project is currently taking suggestions on the missing women scientists in the chemistry curriculum. I filled in the form for Fulhame, naturally! If this post has made you think of any other good examples, do head on over and submit their names.


Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter. Content is © Kat Day 2019. You may share or link to anything here, but you must reference this site if you do.

If you enjoy reading my blog, please consider buying me a coffee through Ko-fi using the button below.
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Carbon dioxide: the good, the bad, and the future

Carbon dioxide is a small molecule with the structure O=C=O

Carbon dioxide has been in and out of the news this summer for one reason or another, but why? Is this stuff helpful, or heinous?

It’s certainly a significant part of our history. Let’s take that history to its literal limits and start at the very beginning. To quote the great Terry Pratchett: “In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.”

(Probably.) This happened around 13.8 billion years ago. Afterwards, stuff flew around for a while (forgive me, cosmologists). Then, about 4.5 billion years ago, the Earth formed out of debris that had collected around our Sun. Temperatures on this early Earth were extremely hot, there was a lot of volcanic activity, and there might have been some liquid water. The atmosphere was mostly hydrogen and helium.

The early Earth was bashed about by other space stuff, and one big collision almost certainly resulted in the formation of the Moon. A lot of other debris vaporised on impact releasing gases, and substances trapped within the Earth started to escape from its crust. The result was Earth’s so-called second atmosphere.

An artist’s concept of the early Earth. Image credit: NASA. (Click image for more.)

This is where carbon dioxide enters stage left… er… stage under? Anyway, it was there, right at this early point, along with water vapor, nitrogen, and smaller amounts of other gases. (Note, no oxygen, that is, O2 – significant amounts of that didn’t turn up for another 1.7 billion years, or 2.8 billion years ago.) In fact, carbon dioxide wasn’t just there, it made up most of Earth’s atmosphere, probably not so different from Mars’s atmosphere today.

The point being that carbon dioxide is not a new phenomenon. It is, in fact, the very definition of an old phenomenon. It’s been around, well, pretty much forever. And so has the greenhouse effect. The early Earth was hot. Really hot. Possibly 200 oC or so, because these atmospheric gases trapped the Sun’s heat. Over time, lots and lots of time, the carbon dioxide levels reduced as it became trapped in carbonate rocks, dissolved in the oceans and was utilised by lifeforms for photosynthesis.

Fast-forward a few billion years to the beginning of the twentieth century and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were about 300 ppm (0.03%), tiny compared to oxygen (about 20%) and nitrogen (about 78%).

Chemists and carbon dioxide

Flemish chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont carried out an experiment which eventually led to the discovery of carbon dioxide gas.

Let’s pause there for a moment and have a little look at some human endeavours. In about 1640 Flemish chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont discovered that if he burned charcoal in a closed vessel, the mass of the resulting ash was much less than that of the original charcoal. He had no way of knowing, then, that he had formed and collected carbon dioxide gas, but he speculated that some of the charcoal had been transmuted into spiritus sylvestris, or “wild spirit”.

In 1754 Scottish chemist Joseph Black noticed that heating calcium carbonate, aka limestone, produced a gas which was heavier than air and which could “not sustain fire or animal life”. He called it “fixed air”, and he’s often credited with carbon dioxide’s discovery, although arguably van Helmont got there first. Black was also the first person to come up with the “limewater test“, where carbon dioxide is bubbled through a solution of calcium hydroxide. He used the test to demonstrate that carbon dioxide was produced by respiration, an experiment still carried out in schools more than 250 years later to show that the air we breathe out contains more carbon dioxide than the air we breathe in.

In 1772 that most famous of English chemists, Joseph Priestley, experimented with dripping sulfuric acid (or vitriolic acid, as he knew it) on chalk to produce a gas which could be dissolved in water. Priestley is often credited with the invention of soda water as a result (more on this in a bit), although physician Dr William Brownrigg probably discovered carbonated water earlier – but he never published his work.

In the late 1700s carbon dioxide became more widely known as “carbonic acid gas”, as seen in this article dated 1853. In 1823 Humphry Davy and Michael Faraday manged to produce liquified carbon dioxide at high pressures. Adrien-Jean-Pierre Thilorier was the first to describe solid carbon dioxide, in 1835. The name carbon dioxide was first used around 1869, when the term “dioxide” came into use.

A diagram from “Impregnating Water with Fixed Air”, printed for J. Johnson, No. 72, in St. Pauls Church-Yard, 1772.

Back to Priestley for a moment. In the late 1800s, a glass of volcanic spring water was a common treatment for digestive problems and general ailments. But what if you didn’t happen to live near a volcanic spring? Joseph Black, you’ll remember, had established that CO2 was produced by living organisms, so it occurred to Priestly that perhaps he could hang a vessel of water over a fermentation vat at a brewery and collect the gas that way.

But it wasn’t very efficient. As Priestly himself said, “the surface of the fixed air is exposed to the common air, and is considerably mixed with it, [and] water will not imbibe so much of it by the process above described.”

It was then that he tried his experiment with vitriolic acid, which allowed for much greater control over the carbonation process. Priestly proposed that the resulting “water impregnated with fixed air” might have a number of medical applications. In particular, perhaps because the water had an acidic taste in a similar way that lemon-infused water does, he thought it might be an effective treatment for scurvy. Legend has it that he gave the method to Captain Cook for his second voyage to the Pacific for this reason. It wouldn’t have helped of course, but it does mean that Cook and his crew were some of the first people to produce carbonated water for the express purpose of drinking a fizzy drink.

Refreshing fizz

You will have noticed that, despite all his work, there is no fizzy drink brand named Priestly (at least, not that I know of).

Joseph Priestley is credited with developing the first method for making carbonated water.

But there is one called Schweppes. That’s because a German watchmaker named Johann Jacob Schweppe spotted Priestley’s paper and worked out a simpler, more efficient process, using sodium bicarbonate and tartaric acid. He went on to found the Schweppes Company in Geneva in 1783.

Today, carbonated drinks are made a little differently. You may have heard about carbon dioxide shortages this summer in the U.K. These arose because these days carbon dioxide is actually collected as a by-product of other processes. In fact, after several bits of quite simple chemistry that add up to a really elegant sequence.

From fertiliser to fizzy drinks

It all begins, or more accurately ends, with ammonia fertiliser. As any GCSE science student who’s been even half paying attention can tell you, ammonia is made by reacting hydrogen with nitrogen during the Haber process. Nitrogen is easy to get hold of – as I’ve already said it makes up nearly 80% of our atmosphere – but hydrogen has to be made from hydrocarbons. Usually natural gas, or methane.

This involves another well-known process, called steam reforming, in which steam is reacted with methane at high temperatures in the presence of a nickel catalyst. This produces carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas. But no problem! React that carbon monoxide with more water in the presence of a slightly different catalyst and you get even more hydrogen. And some carbon dioxide.

Fear not, nothing is wasted here! The CO2 is captured and liquified for all sorts of food-related and industrial uses, not least of which is fizzy drinks. This works well for all concerned because steam reforming produces large amounts of pure carbon dioxide. If you’re going to add it to food and drinks after all, you wouldn’t want a product contaminated with other gases.

Carbon dioxide is a by-product of fertiliser manufacture.

We ended up with a problem this summer in the U.K. because ammonia production plants operate on a schedule which is linked to the planting season. Farmers don’t usually apply fertiliser in the summer – when they’re either harvesting or about to harvest crops – so many ammonia plants shut down for maintenance in April, May, and June. This naturally leads to reduction in the amount of available carbon dioxide, but it’s not normally a problem because the downtime is relatively short and enough is produced the rest of year to keep manufacturers supplied.

This year, though, natural-gas prices were higher, while the price of ammonia stayed roughly the same. This meant that ammonia plants were in no great hurry to reopen, and that meant many didn’t start supplying carbon dioxide in July, just when a huge heatwave hit the UK, coinciding with the World Cup football (which tends to generate a big demand for fizzy pop, for some reason).

Which brings us back to our atmosphere…

Carbon dioxide calamity?

Isn’t there, you may be thinking, too much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere? In fact, that heatwave you just mentioned, wasn’t that a global warming thing?  Can’t we just… extract carbon dioxide from our air and solve everyone’s problems? Well, yes and no. Remember earlier when I said that at the beginning of the twentieth century and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were about 300 ppm (0.03%)?

Over the last hundred years atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased from 0.03% to 0.04%

Today, a little over 100 years later, levels are about 0.04%. This is a significant increase in a relatively short period of time, but it’s still only a tiny fraction of our atmosphere (an important tiny fraction nonetheless – we’ll get to that in a minute).

It is possible to distill gases from our air by cooling air down until it liquefies and then separating the different components by their boiling points. For example nitrogen, N2, boils at a chilly -196 oC whereas oxygen, O2, boils at a mere -183 oC.

But there’s a problem: CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state at standard pressures. It forms a solid, which sublimes directly into a gas. For this reason carbon dioxide is usually removed from cryogenic distillation mixtures, because it would freeze solid and plug up the equipment. There are other ways to extract carbon dioxide from air but although they have important applications (keep reading) they’re not practical ways to produce large volumes of the gas for the food and drink industries.

Back to the environment for a moment: why is that teeny 0.04% causing us such headaches? How can a mere 400 CO2 molecules bouncing around with a million other molecules cause such huge problems?

For that, I need to take a little diversion to talk about infrared radiation, or IR.

Infrared radiation was first discovered by the astronomer William Herschel in 1800. He was trying to observe sun spots when he noticed that his red filter seemed to get particularly hot. In what I’ve always thought was a rather amazing intuitive leap, he then passed sunlight through a prism to split it, held a thermometer just beyond the red light that he could see with his eyes, and discovered that the thermometer showed a higher temperature than when placed in the visible spectrum.

He concluded that there must be an invisible form of light beyond the visible spectrum, and indeed there is: infrared light. It turns out that slightly more than half of the total energy from the Sun arrives on Earth in the form of infrared radiation.

What has this got to do with carbon dioxide? It turns out that carbon dioxide, or rather the double bonds O=C=O, absorb a lot of infrared radiation. By contrast, oxygen and nitrogen, which make up well over 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, don’t absorb infrared.

CO2 molecules also re-emit IR but, having bounced around a bit, not necessarily in the same direction and – and this is the reason that tiny amounts of carbon dioxide cause not so tiny problems – they transfer energy to other molecules in the atmosphere in the process. Think of each CO2 molecule as a drunkard stumbling through a pub, knocking over people’s pints and causing a huge bar brawl. A single disruptive individual can, indirectly, cause a lot of others to find themselves bruised and bleeding and wondering what the hell just happened.

Like carbon dioxide, water vapour also absorbs infrared, but it has a relatively short lifetime in our atmosphere.

Water vapor becomes important here too, because while O2 and N2 don’t absorb infrared, water vapour does. Water vapour has a relatively short lifetime in our atmosphere (about ten days compared to a decade for carbon dioxide) so its overall warming effect is less. Except that once carbon dioxide is thrown into the mix it transfers extra heat to the water, keeping it vapour (rather than, say, precipitating as rain) for longer and pushing up the temperature of the system even more.

Basically, carbon dioxide molecules trap heat near the planet’s surface. This is why carbon dioxide is described as a greenhouse gas and increasing levels are causing global warming. There are people who are still arguing this isn’t the case, but truly, they’ve got the wrong end of the (hockey) stick.

It’s not even a new concept. Over 100 years ago, in 1912, a short piece was published in the Rodney and Otamatea Times which said: “The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about  7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature.”

This summer has seen record high temperatures and some scientists have been warning of a “Hothouse Earth” scenario.

This 1912 piece suggested we might start to see effects in “centuries”. In fact, we’re seeing the results now. As I mentioned earlier, this summer has seen record high temperatures and some scientists have been warning of “Hothouse Earth” scenario, where rising temperatures cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. The authors stressed it’s not inevitable, but preventing it will require a collective effort. They even published a companion document which included several possible solutions which, oddly enough, garnered rather fewer column inches than the “we’re all going to die” angle.

Don’t despair, DO something…

But I’m going to mention it, because it brings us back to CO2. There’s too much of it in our atmosphere. How can we deal with that? It’s simple really: first, stop adding more, i.e. stop burning fossil fuels. We have other technologies for producing energy. The reason we’re still stuck on fossil fuels at this stage is politics and money, and even the most obese of the fat cats are starting to realise that money isn’t much use if you don’t have a habitable planet. Well, most of them. (There’s probably no hope for some people, but we can at least hope that their damage-doing days are limited.)

There are some other, perhaps less obvious, sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that might also be reduced, such as livestock, cement for building materials and general waste.

Forests trap carbon dioxide in land carbon sinks. More biodiverse systems generally store more carbon.

And then, we’re back to taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere. How? Halting deforestation would allow more CO2 to be trapped in so-called land carbon sinks. Likewise, good agricultural soil management helps to trap carbon underground. More biodiverse systems generally store more carbon, so if we could try to stop wiping out land and coastal systems, that would be groovy too. Finally, there’s the technological solution: carbon capture and storage, or CSS.

This, in essence, involves removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in geological formations. The same thing the Earth has done for millenia, but more quickly. It can also be linked to bio-energy production in a process known as BECCS. It sounds like the perfect solution, but right now it’s energy intensive and expensive, and there are concerns that BECCS projects could end up competing with agriculture and damaging conservation efforts.

A new answer from an ancient substance?

Forming magnesite, or magnesium carbonate, may be one way to trap carbon dioxide.

Some brand new research might offer yet another solution. It’s another carbon-capture technology which involves magnesium carbonate, or magnesite (MgCO3). Magnesite forms slowly on the Earth’s surface, over hundreds of thousands of years, trapping carbon dioxide in its structure as it does.

It can easily be made quickly at high temperatures, but of course if you have to heat things up, you need energy, which might end up putting as much CO2 back in as you’re managing to take out. Recently a team of researchers at Trent University in Canada have found a way to form magnesite quickly at room temperature using polystyrene microspheres.

This isn’t something which would make much difference if, say, you covered the roof of everyone’s house with the microspheres, but it could be used in fuel-burning power generators (which could be burning renewables or even waste materials) to effectively scrub the carbon dioxide from their emissions. That technology on its own would make a huge difference.

And so here we are. Carbon dioxide is one of the oldest substances there is, as “natural” as they come. From breathing to fizzy drinks to our climate, it’s entwined in every aspect of our everyday existence. It is both friend and foe. Will we work out ways to save ourselves from too much of it in our atmosphere? Personally, I’m optimistic, so long as we support scientists and engineers rather than fight them…


Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter. All content is © Kat Day 2018. You may share or link to anything here, but you must reference this site if you do.

If you enjoy reading my blog, please consider buying me a coffee (I promise to use a reusable cup) through Ko-fi using the button below.
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com