Letters: March 2018

1 Comment

Your comments on Classic Kit and Brexit

Ken Seddon (1950–2018)

Inorganic chemist Ken Seddon, who died on 12 January 2018 aged 67, was a pioneer and early leader of the green chemistry movement. He is recognised for a contribution that transformed ionic liquids from a backwater into an accepted mainstream field of materials chemistry, with an unusually collaborative and cooperative international research community which produces thousands of papers and hundreds of patents each year.

He was a complex character. Generous with time, he created a unique blend of simultaneous challenge and support which made him a superb mentor, teacher and research supervisor. He cemented friendships with charm, humour and enthusiasm for all aspects of science and culture, and helped workers from anywhere on ionic liquids develop their ideas. But many found his larger-than-life persona difficult and obstructive, especially in his ceaseless high-voltage promotion of ionic liquids: his directness undoubtedly cost him allies.

Born in Liverpool in 1950, Ken sped through Liverpool University, completing a PhD under David Nicholls at age 22. He won a Central Electricity Generating Board fellowship to Oxford in 1974, moved to Sussex in 1982 (becoming reader in experimental chemistry), and in 1993 took the chair of inorganic chemistry at Queen’s University Belfast.

Ken didn’t invent ionic liquids (nor did he ever claim that he did), be he realised their potential, using them as solvents for electrochemistry and spectroscopy of transition metal complexes. Ken authored over 400 papers, was named as inventor on more than 50 patents and completed three monographs and a dozen books co-editing conference proceedings. He had wide and deep interests in science and in culture, ranging from classic to avant-garde. His writing was peppered with quotes: the sources ranged from Hindu philosophy to popular music.

In 2011 he was the highest-ranked UK chemist in the Times Higher Education survey of top scientists of the past decade. In 2015 he was awarded an OBE for services to chemistry. Ken continued working up to the point of his death from complications of metastatic cancer, wanting to complete a book on the disposal of chemical weapons.

Ken Seddon, who died on 12 January 2018 aged 67, was a pioneering inorganic chemist and an early leader of the green chemistry movement. His recognised contribution transformed ionic liquids from a backwater into a mainstream field of materials chemistry. Its unusually collaborative and cooperative international research community produces thousands of papers and hundreds of patents each year.

Ken didn’t invent ionic liquids, nor claimed to have, but in the 1980s he saw their huge potential: a novel unexplored state of matter with excellent solubilising properties, long liquid range and negligible vapour pressure. Changing the cation and anion let you design any properties you wanted, including low environmental impact; the range of compositions approached infinite. Twenty years on, applications abound in diverse sectors: oil and gas refining, biofuels, pharmaceutical manufacture, lubricants, tiny batteries, extraction and separation, antimicrobials, and consumer products. Many originated in Queen’s University Ionic Liquids Laboratories (QUILL), co-founded in 1999 by Ken and Jim Swindall; technology to strip mercury from natural gas streams won three IChemE awards.

Ken authored over 400 papers, was named as inventor on more than 50 patents, completed three monographs and a dozen books co-editing conference proceedings. He was a complex character. His writing was peppered with quotes, drawn from his deep and wide interests in science and culture. His unique blend of simultaneous challenge and support which made him a superb mentor, teacher and research supervisor. Charm, humour and generosity with time cemented friendships. He helped workers globally to develop ionic liquids research ideas. But some found his larger-than-life persona difficult, even obstructive: his forcefulness and directness undoubtedly cost him allies.

In 2011 he was ranked highest UK chemist in the Times Higher Education survey of top scientists of the past decade. In 2015 he was awarded an OBE for services to chemistry. Ken continued working up to the point of his death from complications of metastatic cancer, looking after research students and racing to complete a book on the disposal of chemical weapons.

In 1976 he married Elaine Eastwood, then a research student who went on to a career at Daresbury Laboratory; the marriage ended in 1990.

Fluidisation faux pas

Andrea Sella implies that Fritz Winkler was the discoverer of the phenomenon of fluidisation in the early 1920s. In fact it was well known before then, having been the subject of a US patent taken out by C E Robinson in 1879 for the roasting of ores in an improved furnace. Robinson’s description of the fluidised solids which ‘did boil and play like the waters of a fountain’ is not dissimilar to Winkler’s ‘a lively dancing movement’ of the coal powder. Other early fluidisation processes were the Fuller-Kenyon pump for the pneumatic conveyance of solids and the 1895 use of pulverised fuel in furnaces.

Andrea Sella implies that Fritz Winkler was the discoverer of the phenomenon of fluidisation in the early 1920s (Chemistry World, November 2017, p70). In fact it was well known before then, having been the subject of a US patent taken out by C E Robinson in 1879 for the roasting of ores in an improved furnace. Robinson’s description of the fluidised solids which ‘did boil and play like the waters of a fountain’ is not dissimilar to Winkler’s ‘a lively dancing movement’ of the coal powder. Other early fluidisation processes were the Fuller-Kenyon pump for the pneumatic conveyance of solids and the 1895 use of pulverised fuel in furnaces.

Robin Ward CChem FRSC
London, UK

Founding climate science

I enjoyed most of the article on Melloni’s invention of the thermomultiplier. However, there are unfortunate misconceptions regarding climate science. Melloni was definitely not the inventor or originator of this discipline, as stated in the article, although it is correct that his work paved the way for Tyndall’s later work on IR absorption of gases. Modern climate science must have begun with Wladimir Köppen’s classification of ‘climate regions’ in 1884 and Vilhelm Bjerknes’ work on numerical weather prediction from basic physical principles in 1904.

I enjoyed most of the article on Melloni’s invention of the thermomultiplier (Chemistry World, January 2018, p70). However, there are unfortunate misconceptions regarding climate science. Melloni was definitely not the inventor or originator of this discipline, as stated in the article, although it is correct that his work paved the way for Tyndall’s later work on IR absorption of gases. Modern climate science must have begun with Wladimir Köppen’s classification of ‘climate regions’ in 1884 and Vilhelm Bjerknes’ work on numerical weather prediction from basic physical principles in 1904.

Most of the general public instead seems to believe that climate variations on Earth only depend on anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and their IR absorption properties. Historical and other information tells us otherwise, as summarised in the many books by Hubert Lamb, first director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK. Many consider him to be the father of modern climatology.

Peter Stilbs, FRSC
Akersberga, Sweden

Andrea Sella replies: You are right to question the precise date of the birth of the field of climate science. My choice of Melloni’s thermomultiplier was something of a rhetorical ruse drawing attention to that very question, one that it is fun to argue about. Although Stilbs puts the date around 1884 as the birth of climate science, others would argue for Joseph Fourier’s initial estimates of planetary energy balance around 1827. Many people are unaware of the long-term factors that contribute to the temperature at the Earth’s surface, not least the Milankovich cycles, but these are irrelevant to the lives of ordinary people. It is carbon dioxide that is responsible for the progressive increasing in radiative forcing on a human timescale, with water vapour as a key feedback that amplifies its effects. To suggest otherwise undermines the crucial message of almost 200 years of careful investigation.

Brexit bias

I am becoming increasingly annoyed with the editorial policy of Chemistry World and I am now seriously considering not renewing my 30+ year membership of RSC. Why? Because of the relentless bias of articles that criticise Brexit and Donald Trump (Chemistry World, January 2018, p1, 56).

In the UK, we had a referendum on our membership of the EU. It was a once-in-a-generation chance for the country to decide on its future direction. The vote was to leave the EU. I voted to leave for five main reasons: the EU structure is neither democratic nor accountable; the EU goal is a federal Europe (ever closer union) which I think is not appropriate for the UK; the EU is wasteful of European taxpayers money; the EU does not have a record of astute decision making; and, worst of all, the EU leadership doesn’t recognise the need to change. The EU referendum result was not a test that the electorate somehow got wrong. It was a choice between two alternative, valid futures. Both choices have strengths and weaknesses and there will be winners and losers. The decision has been made.

I have worked extensively in the US. I would not have voted for Trump but I know many intelligent co-workers who did vote for him. He was elected by a not insignificant margin. I hoped that in office he would prove less controversial than he was on campaign. I have been disappointed, but he is still the democratically elected president.

The democratic process values criticism and debate, but vocal minorities should also respect democratically made decisions.

Tim Fowler, CChem MRSC
Cambridgeshire, UK

I was disturbed and dismayed to read the article by Paul Satchell, the Royal Society of Chemistry’s honorary treasurer (Chemistry World, January 2018, p1). I feel that the article, heavily skewed in an anti-Brexit direction, was politically motivated and unbalanced. The article painted an unnecessarily gloomy picture of the UK’s chemical industry post-Brexit.

His article says that tariffs ‘as high as 6.5%’ could be applied to chemicals coming from the EU and that becoming detached from Reach would be problematic. As a chemical product formulator, I have seen the impact of Reach on the availability and pricing of chemical raw materials. Speciality materials have seen huge (double or treble digit percentage) increases in price since Reach, as manufacturers attempt to recover the huge costs of Reach registration. I would summarise the article as scaremongering and Brexit-bashing; such an article has no place in the pages of Chemistry World.

Gilbert Fleming CSci CChem MRSC
Bromborough, UK

Editor: We feel a responsibility to report issues affecting the chemical sciences fairly, accurately and impartially. The unprecedented, widespread campaigns by scientists and the latest reports on the impact of Brexit are newsworthy and we stand by our coverage. Our comment pieces always reflect the opinions of the authors, who are experts in their chosen topics. We support their right to express their views.