Save The Birds and Bio-Based Nail Polish Remover
The May Issue on Green Chemistry and Circular Plastic Economies
It’s been an interesting month since I last published this issue of the newsletter. I think the story that has really caught my attention is the rise of bio-based and sustainable chemicals and plastics—meanwhile legislation is being put into place to control all plastics with the same rigor as toxic chemicals. I see the legislation and rise in new sustainable things as being somewhat in opposition.
On the development front I saw that Braskem and Nxtlevvel Biochem have formed a collaboration to study bio-based solvents. Braskem is a Brasilian chemical giant while Nxtlevvel is a small “start-up” that bought out some of the early levulinic acid startups. Levulinic acid is near and dear to me because I studied some of its derivatives in graduate school for epoxy resins. Solvents are an area that don’t get too much attention until they start getting on substances of very high concern lists or get outright banned.
Industrially, solvents get used all the time to clean, separate and solvate other chemicals and polymers, remove paint, and thin out new coatings. If you’ve ever had nail polish removed then you’ve used acetone to solvate the polymeric coating on your nails. Nxtlevvel is looking to commercialize levulinate esters for uses in coatings with the goal of displacing traditional oil derived solvents and coalescents. Maybe there will be a nail polish remover grade.
If you’ve ever painted a wall or a piece of wood with a brush or a roller and you’ve noticed that the paint forms a really nice smooth coating that is in part the work of a coalescent agent. I believe the largest volume coalescent in North America right now is Texanol by Eastman and it is an ester alcohol (aka 2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate—this is why we just call it Texanol). If Nxtlevvel and Braskem can figure out a new bio-based coalescent that can compete with Texanol on performance and price then they might have a home run.
Doris Guzman reported that Arkema is continuing its expansion of its bio-based polyamide plant otherwise known as polyamide-11 and it is based on castor oil. If you have no idea what a polyamide is I would direct you to my primer on nylon. Arkema is investing about 350 mil euros into Singapore to build this plant with the aim of supplying the Asia-Pacific markets. Nylon-11 is used quite a bit in athletic footwear and thus this plant in Singapore makes a lot of sense. The only economical way to make polyamide-11 is through a bio-based based route and it has been this way since its invention.
Now the other side of the story
In what feels like eons ago I wrote a policy position on a plastic ban that was being proposed here, but in Canada legislation has passed that treats plastic waste much in the same way as a toxic chemical. Clay Boswell reported on the story for ChemWeek recently, but this story has been brewing since 2019. At the heart of the legislation that treats plastic as a toxic chemical is the idea that plastic waste in nature can be detrimental to wildlife much in the way that dumping chemicals in the Hudson river is toxic.
It is not that small molecules coming from the plastic are toxic, but rather a cascade effect of plastic making its way into animals or around animals and causing death. I’m not going to put the turtle with the plastic straw video here, but I will put up Chris Jordan’s photograph of an Albatros that died with an immense amount of plastic in its stomach. The cause of debate can be debated, but the fact that wildlife is being impacted by plastic waste should be universally agreed on by all parties.
I think that the legislation treating plastic as a toxic chemical is intriguing. I don’t think it would ever pass here in the United States due to how we exempt plastics from the Toxic Substances and Controls Act, the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, and a strong lobbying group in the American Chemistry Council. Any legislation would need the support of the chemical and plastics industry, which I think could happen once advanced recycling capacity is installed. If you were a company that was reliant on spent plastic waste coming to your manufacturing operations you would want it to be reliable and of sufficient volume to where you never ran out. Any policy wonks reading this please chime in via email or comments.
Boswell reported the following and I think cuts to the heart of the issue:
Environmental groups applauded the move. “There is no more time to waste on industry’s false solutions like recycling and bioplastics,” said Laura Yates, plastic campaigner at Greenpeace Canada. “What we need is swift implementation of a strong ban and federal support to innovate new systems not dependent on disposables.”
Tony Radoszewski, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, called the designation “false labeling” and potentially dangerous. “Such a label could have ramifications far beyond some single-use items,” he stated. “It could fast-track more bans on other consumer products that are fully recyclable.”
Recycling should be the main focus, he added. “Banning a material that has transformed modern medicine in the name of public health is absurd, especially during a pandemic necessitating plastic gloves, masks, ventilators, vaccine packaging, and more. When we’re so close to real solutions, we shouldn’t pursue policies that reverse course on progress and punish ordinary people.”
My issue with Greenpeace is that their stance appears to be a ban on everything. To me it is akin to just banning something we find very useful right now and hope that “scientists and engineers” come up with some new alternative. We are not magicians that can just pull a whole new materials economy out of a hat. Just replacing Texanol with a new coalescent might take years for all of the various coatings out there.
The plastics industry feels that it is being maligned by this Canadian legislation and unfairly labeled while environmental groups applaud the legislation. I think that both groups will continue to wear Nikes when they go to the gym in cars or on bikes that rely on rubber tires. Nikes and tires reach an end of use point too and they are also almost completely made out of synthetic polymers and where do those articles made from “plastic” go? If its not in a landfill or recycling does this mean that the polluters will be charged with dumping toxic waste? Guess what, its not the chemical or plastic makers that will be charged with dumping toxic waste just as it is not the gun manufacturers that are charged with homicide.
I believe that the chemical companies that are making plastic are making efforts to utilize plastic as a new raw material and create a circular economy and this really only started to gain traction in the last ten years. I believe that Greenpeace and the chemical industry should work together instead of being in opposition to each other.
The legislation is available in the Canada Gazette and it is primarily aimed at getting plastic waste into recycling or landfill operations. Outside of single use plastic being banned I don’t see the plastic manufacturers being hit very hard by this legislation just yet. It will be interesting to see if any criminal cases go to court over some plastic packaging blowing out of an open recycling bin and into the street and not picking it up. If the law is not enforcable then it’s meaningless.
Aggressive legislation aimed at curbing plastic waste could negatively impact how modern lives are lived, but it also seeks for us to pay for the current externalized costs of our modern lives. Aggresive legislation could slow down a bio-based economy—it also provides a framework of constraints that scientists and engineers can work from to invent the future where both the environmental groups and the chemical companies are in agreement on the direction of our materials future.
Talk to you next week,