Talk:Green chemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sunnydayreading.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

I have added a cat. called green chemistry. I think that we need to make it clear that green chemistry is not the same as enviromental chemistry.

Environmental chemistry is the chemistry of how something behaves in the enviroment it might be something such as carboxylic acids in rainwater, the nitrogen cycle or Pu in soil.

Green chemistry is chemistry (normally synthetic chemistry) which has been designed to have as small an impact on the enviroment. Examples might include the use of solventless reactions and supercritial CO2. Cadmium 09:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree that it's not the same thing, and we need to make it clear. I've done some work to the Environmental chemistry article, which hopefully makes to point clear enough. Though obviously feel free to expand the point if you think it's needed. Also hope you don't mind- I fixed the link in your post above (to stop it red linking). --Petros471 12:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is cool by me, I have no problem with you fixing the bad link.Cadmium 23:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more clear to use templates like Template:This article is about to show the difference between green chemistry and environmental chemistry? b3virq3b 07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Supramolecular Chemistry[edit]

This might be a leading citation: Chem. Commun., 2001, 2462 - 2463, DOI: 10.1039/b106584j "Exploiting modularity in template-controlled synthesis: a new linear template to direct reactivity within discrete hydrogen-bonded molecular assemblies in the solid state", Giannis S. Papaefstathiou, Alex J. Kipp and Leonard R. MacGillivray. Or maybe their reference 6. Or ref. 11.

HOWEVER!! There are thousands and thousands of template-directed bond forming reactions in the solid state initiated by light, X-rays, gamma-rays, etc. Many of them form unique products in high yield. SO WHAT? Why is this example in the Green Chemistry article? This reaction requires a Rayonet reactor operating at 300 nm. You waste a lot of electricity doing that. How about finding an example that does not occur in solution or that does occur with sunlight or other natural source rather than with artificial UV. This example is symmetrical (A=A + A=A --> photodimer); how about a reaction that can be performed selectively in the solid state over the solution phase (A=B + C=D --> one of many products)?

Maybe I just don't get it. AdderUser 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see the point of this example related with the Green Chemistry, there's a lot of things like this, is not a useful proces (one even may think this one is useless). I rather the mention of supercritic CO2 or ionic liquids as a solvent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.109.1.15 (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This example involves the synthesis of an organic molecule in quantitative yield in the solid state, which means that no organic solvent is necessary. Furthermore, this specific product can not be made without obtaining by-products using solution techniques. Although Rayonet reactor was used, all photoproducts published by this group of Authors can be synthesized in the solid state using sunlight. In a laboratory environment a photoreactor produces measurable results, therefore we couldn't rely on the sun-power to perform scientific experiments. That, was one of our first results and it was published in Chemical communications because it is not easy at all to make such molecules either in solution or in the solid state, therefore, you need to wait few years more in order to see more complicated molecules being synthesized in the solid state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.0.230 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observational Database[edit]

A large observational database of many different atmospheric constituents from a host of platforms is available. This was created as part of ESA Envisat and NASA Aura validation. It is of general use. Do you think it should be added to the article text? Dlary

It sounds like that is relevant to the field of environmental chemistry, which is quite different from green chemistry. DMacks 07:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case study of ibuprofen[edit]

I've prepared images for the Boots and BHC syntheses of ibuprofen, which is a popular case study. Perhaps someone would like to discuss them in some detail? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organometallic chemicals[edit]

In de section on "Organometallic chemicals" two abriviations are used (ALD and CVD), which both link to disambugation pages. Is anyone capable of puting the correct links, as I just wanted to know what the abriviations in this context are standing for. Thanks a lot. T.vanschaik (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1,3-Propanediol[edit]

How is this green chemistry? It might be, but there is no explanation as to why it is, and the only reference is to the paper about the process. Is there an independent source? As this is an encyclopedia, the examples should illuminate the subject. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrazine[edit]

But NaCl is not a problem as a product, and in any case NaOCl is produced from NaCl, and NaCl could be recycled so where is the advantage? Where does the H2O2 come from? You cannot just use one reaction, but have to consider the whole process and life cycle.Chemical Engineer (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful comments. I dont buy that NaCl is not a problem. I guess one can needs to define the system boundaries in any process, and that can be rather vague (where did the H2O2 come from for example). As a chemical shorthand, one can rank greenness by the non-protoduction of things other than water. Perfect? No, but a start. The green-chem area is filled with baloney and hippie thinking, but the issue for us editors is to describe the area as best we can. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing cutting the Publicity section[edit]

I was thinking of cutting the following large section: "Publicity". Some bits might be usefully incorporated into the main article (e.g. PLA and butanediol), but otherwise a standalone section on Publicity seems to invite problems. I also propose cutting/blending the short section on "Laboratory chemicals" since Green chem is about industrial scale processes and the lab chemicals are already listed in the list of 20 Green Principles. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of the separate "Publicity" section. Maybe it could be re-worked into an "Awards" section (only awards that are notable or from notable organizations)? That would make it more about notable aspects (and help support cherry-picking examples of this field). I also support merging the "Laboratory chemicals" section elsewhere, since it does indeed merely amplify via alternate sources or provide specific examples of the principles.
We also have the conceptually redundant sections of "Legislation" and "Laws" that should be merged. And "Trends" is partially just more cherry-picked examples, and partially additional criteria (should go into "Principles" section as extensions or competing factors beyond the key 12 points).
Is there enough to say individually about many/most/all of the principles that there should be subsections for each? That could be an alternate way to place specific examples (ones whose notability stems from addressing certain of the principles in a novel way). OTOH, there's lots of content that would not fit into such a clearly delineated framework:( DMacks (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also have a separate Green chemistry metrics page, where various measures (as opposed to general principles and implications/applications) could be off-loaded. DMacks (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good idea. The topic is a tricky one in terms of defining scope. It is heavily visited (400x/day). One could pour many hours into this thing. I just searched my library for ebooks with "Green Chemistry" in title, 102 hits! Here are some...
  • Green chemistry in the pharmaceutical industry, Published 2010
  • Alternative solvents for green chemistry by Kerton, Francesca M. Published 2013
  • Handbook of green chemistry and technology, Published 2002
  • Green chemistry and engineering by Doble, Mukesh Published 2007
  • Green Chemistry for Environmental Remediation, by Sanghi, Rashmi Published 2012
  • Agricultural applications in green chemistry, Published c2004

Green chemistry for environmental sustainability, Published c2011 etc.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the concept[edit]

Currently, the article's introduction ends with a collection of statements about who came up with green chemistry (the term and the concept) first, almost like a series of competing endorsements. I propose to rewrite this paragraph -- using a few scholarly secondary sources (some already cited in this article), I think we can present a much clearer and more accurate picture than we have now. Would it be overdoing it to add a separate 'History' section? -- Akokai (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could re-write the lede. It is pretty awful, and too focused on personalities vs the actual topic. I think that there are some textbooks on the topic that might be good guides.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement! I've rewritten the offending paragraph. Exactly what kind of introduction works best is not totally obvious to me at this point. I'm holding off on the History section for now. What we have is definitely a work in progress. -- Akokai (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Controversy' section[edit]

I've rewritten the section on 'Controversy' and refocused it on the uncertainty in the definition of green chemistry ('Contested definition'?). The original short paragraph seemed like an opinion statement casting doubt on the scientific legitimacy of green chemistry – not what the article needs, I think. But I do think it's important to acknowledge that not everyone agrees on a single definition, and to explain why that is (not just politics, dishonesty, etc.; it's because green chemistry is quite complex and linked to other complex issues). Akokai (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good refocusing and clarification of the actual issues! DMacks (talk)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Green chemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_chemistry&oldid=1209283048"