You are on page 1of 23


The green chemistry revolution is providing an enormous number of challenges to those who practice
chemistry in industry, education and research. With these challenges however, there are an equal number
of opportunities to discover and apply new chemistry, to improve the economics of chemical
manufacturing and to enhance the much-tarnished image of chemistry.


In the 1990s, the concept of green chemistry was initiated in both the US and
Europe, and has since been adopted widely by the chemical industry. Green chemistry deals with
designing chemical products and processes that generate and use fewer (or preferably no) hazardous
substances. By applying the principles of green chemistry, companies embrace cleaner and more efficient
technologies, with an a priori commitment to a cleaner and healthier environment. The green chemistry
message is simple: Seek prevention, not cure.
Green chemistry offers an alternative to the traditional environmental protection
agenda, mainly because it deals with avoiding hazards, rather than treating and
solving exposure problems.
Green Chemistry is the utilisation of a set of principles that reduces or eliminates the use or
generation of hazardous substances in the design, manufacture and application of chemical

Green chemistry initiatives are driven by government legislation, societal pressure, and economic
What is the difference between Environmental Science and Green Chemistry?
Both areas of study seek to make the world a better place. The two are
complimentary to each other. Environmental Science identifies sources, elucidates mechanisms and
quantifies problems in the earths environment. Green Chemistry seeks to solve these problems by
creating alternative, safe technologies. Green Chemistry is not Environmental Chemistry. Green
Chemistry targets pollution prevention at the source, during the design stage of a chemical product or
and thus prevents pollution before it begins.
Is Green Chemistry more expensive that traditional Chemistry?

No. A simplified analysis of the cost structure associated with any chemical
process takes into account the cost of materials, equipment and the human resources necessary.
But, in reality, disposal, treatment and regulatory costs associated with the buying, using and
generating hazardous materials involves numerous hidden costs. When you buy and use a
hazardous material you are paying for it twice, once when you use it and once when you get rid
of it. It makes sense that if you use materials that are non-hazardous and thus have minimal
regulatory or disposal costs associated with them, the benefit to the economic bottom line is
obvious. The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award has provided illustrations of several
examples where industry has not only accomplished goals of pollution prevention, but has
achieved significant economic benefits simultaneously.

Why do we need Green Chemistry?

Chemistry is undeniably a very prominent part of our daily lives.

Chemical developments also bring new environmental problems and harmful unexpected side
effects, which result in the need for greener chemical products.

A famous example is the pesticide DDT.

Green chemistry looks at pollution prevention on the molecular scale and is an extremely
important area of Chemistry due to the importance of Chemistry in our world today and the
implications it can show on our environment.

The Green Chemistry program supports the invention of more environmentally friendly
chemical processes which reduce or even eliminate the generation of hazardous substances.

This program works very closely with the twelve principles of Green Chemistry.

The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry

1. Prevention

It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has been created.
2. Atom Economy
Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the
process into the final product.
3. Less Hazardous Chemical Syntheses
Wherever practicable, synthetic methods should be designed to use and generate substances that
possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment.
4. Designing Safer Chemicals
Chemical products should be designed to effect their desired function while minimizing their
5. Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries
The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be made
unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous when used.

6. Design for Energy Efficiency

Energy requirements of chemical processes should be recognized for their environmental and
economic impacts and should be minimized. If possible, synthetic methods should be conductedat
ambient temperature and pressure.
7. Use of Renewable Feedstocks
A raw material or feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting whenever technically
and economically practicable.
8. Reduce Derivatives
Unnecessary derivatization (use of blocking groups, protection/ deprotection, temporary
modification of physical/chemical processes) should be minimized or avoided if possible,
because such steps require additional reagents and can generate waste.
Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents.

10. Design for Degradation

Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their function they break down into
innocuous degradation products and do not persist in the environment.
11. Real-time analysis for Pollution Prevention
Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-time, in-process
monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances.
12. Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention
Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen to
minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.
Sustainable development

In the modern context, the terms sustainable development and green

chemistry have been around for less than 15 years. Discussion of sustainability began,
essentially, when the 1987 UN Commission on Environment and Development (usually referred
to as the Bruntland Commission) noted that economic development might lead to a deterioration,
not an improvement, in the quality of peoples lives. This led to the now commonly accepted
definition of sustainable development
A sustainable society is one that meets the needs of the current generation without
sacrificing the ability to meet the needs of future generations. Sustainable development is a
strategic goal. It can be reached using various approaches, and this is where green chemistry
comes in. green chemistry is just one step (albeit an important one) along the road to
What is sustainable energy?
There are three basic demands an energy source must meet to be characterized as

The long-term availability of the energy source that guarantees to meet any present or
future consumption needs.

The energy source must be replenishable without human intervention.

The amount of energy consumed to exploit the available resources should not exceed the
amount of energy these resources produce (ie, the energy efficiency of the source).

What is Renewable Energy?

Renewable Energy is simply energy from a source that isnt used up when the energy is
consumed. The supplies of solar and wind are not limited. The supply of oil and other

hydrocarbons is limited for all practical purposes. When we have extracted the last barrel from
the ground or tar sands its finished for these millennia.
Adopting a geological sense of time (billions of years), we can say that all energy
sources are renewable. If we could wait long enough, more oil would be created. The geological
sense of time doesnt help us to make good, sustainable energy decisions since our rate of
consumption far exceeds the rate of replenishment.
Keeping a human sense of time (generations), our most renewable sources of energy
are: solar, wind, hydroelectric, hydrokinetic, geothermal, and hydrogen fuel cells. Carbon-based
renewables include: biomass, biodiesel, waste to energy, anaerobic digestion and landfill
gas. These eleven energy sources are listed by most U.S. states in their Renewables Portfolio
Standards (RPS).
Sustainable vs Renewable Energy Are They the Same?
Many use the terms sustainable and renewable energy without any distinction.
Contrary to the common belief, there is a difference between them. Although renewable energy
sources share all the sustainable energy characteristics described above, they are clean sources
that do not pollute the environment during consumption and have minimum impact on human
health and the ecosystems. Therefore, the term "sustainable" is wider and includes all types of
renewable energy.

Types of Sustainable and Renewable Energy Sources

Sources such as the sun, the wind, and the earth's heat can be characterized as both
sustainable and renewable energy sources, since they have minimum impact on the environment:
Solar Energy:
The sun provides us with a completely clean and environmentally friendly source of
energy. Technology is currently focused on manufacturing high efficiency solar modules to
exploit this energy.
This is another clean energy source with high efficiency. However, the wind turbines
will have to be placed in windy locations in order to be effective. Denmark and Germany are the
world leaders in this field.
Plants, trees, switchgrass, corn, and other biofuels are converted into ethanol which in
turn, is burned to generate power. Switchgrass is thought to have higher energy efficiency than
corn.Hydrogen can also be made from biomass, although this is not a very efficient way to
exploit biomass just yet. Many suggest the use of buffalo urine as a biofuel. In this case, huge

quantities of urine would have to be produced, which is almost impossible. Anyway, any kind of
urine could be used to produce hydrogen, which is a better fuel.

Benefits of Renewable Energy Use

Little to No Global Warming Emissions

Improved Public Health and Environmental Quality

A Vast and Inexhaustible Energy Supply

Jobs and Other Economic Benefits

Stable Energy Prices

A More Reliable and Resilient Energy System

Energy is neither renewable nor sustainable a different look.

By Steven Smith
Winthrop Professor, Plant Energy Biology, ARC Centre of Excellence
Posted on 21 April 2011
Filed under Energy, Minerals
The pressure is on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. The way
proposed by most people is to switch away from fossil fuels to alternatives such as wind, solar,
tidal and geothermal. Such alternative energy sources are often described as renewable or
sustainable. This terminology implies to most people that such alternatives can meet our energy
demands in perpetuity, without polluting the environment. This is wrong, and will lead to serious
errors in policy making.
Energy generated for human use cannot be green, clean, renewable or sustainable. These
words are all part of the greenwashing or sugar-coating vocabulary used for the benefit of
corporate or political interests, or simply words of misunderstanding. They have no foundation in
rigorous scientific language or thought.
Put simply the Earth can be considered as an open thermodynamic system in terms of energy but
a closed system as far as matter is concerned. The sun continues to radiate energy to the Earth,
and energy is re-radiated to space, more-or-less at the same rate. Over a very long period of time
(many millions of years) there is a progressive increase in entropy and a net loss of energy from
the Earth to the rest of the universe but this natural process is not significant on time scales
relevant to humans.
However, humans increasingly wish to convert solar radiation into different forms of energy such
as electricity or fuel, that can do work. This can only be achieved by creating devices or

machines to convert one form of energy into another and the resources for those devices come
from the Earths crust. Those devices have a finite life span and depend on yet further
infrastructure (transport, cities, factories, universities, police, etc.) to maintain and operate them,
which in turn has a finite life span. Continued mining, refining and manufacturing is required.
The amount of energy captured from the sun by such devices can never be enough to restore the
Earth to its original condition. This is determined by the second law of thermodynamics. So the
process of mining, building and manufacturing, to convert and use energy, inexorably depletes
and degrades the Earths mineral resources. It is irreversible and unsustainable. It makes no
difference whether we consider solar, wind, hydro, coal, bio, nuclear or geothermal energy. They
are all unsustainable according to the laws of physics.
The second law of thermodynamics also tells us that we cannot completely recycle resources that
have been extracted from the Earth and refined for use (such as metals, helium or phosphate
fertiliser). The greater the percentage we try to recycle, so the energy cost increases
disproportionately. So whether the resources that we want to use are still in the ground or are in
circulation above ground, human industry will inevitably dissipate and lose those resources.
The more people we have on the planet, and the more energy we use, the faster and more
extensive is the degradation of Earths resources. Humanity is like a huge organic machine, using
energy to mine and deplete minerals. The more energy that is put into the system, the faster the
degradation occurs. Nuclear fusion energy, if it comes to be, might be particularly efficient at
degrading our resources and environment (one effect of such technology may be to convert our
lithium reserves into helium which will escape the Earths atmosphere and be lost forever).
Energy for human use is as unsustainable and non-renewable as mining. So to talk about
renewable energy or sustainable energy is an oxymoron, as is sustainable mining or
sustainable development. The more energy we use, the less sustainable is humanity. The
sooner that people realise this, the sooner we can embark on the process of reducing energy
consumption, rather than clutching at the straws of alternative energy sources to perpetuate the
Quantifying Environmental Impact: Efficiency, E-factors, and Atom Economy
Everyone agrees that green chemistry and green manufacture are good things. The
websites and pamphlets of all the major chemical companies emphasize their concern for the
environment. They all say that their processes and products are efficient, green, and
environmentally friendly. But how should we compare these processes? How should we judge
such claims?
First, let us define some key terms. One method for quantifying a reactions
efficiency is by examining the reactant conversion, the product selectivity, and the
product yield over time. The reactant conversion is the fraction of reactant molecules
that have transformed to product molecules (regardless of which product it is). The
selectivity to product P is the fraction (or percentage) of the converted reactant
that has turned into this specific product P. The yield of P is simply conversion

selectivity. High conversions in short time spans mean smaller and safer reactors.
Similarly, high selectivity means less waste, and simpler and cheaper separation
units. Thus, conversion, selectivity, and yield are all measures of the reaction
In addition, there are specific rulers for measuring the greenness or eco friendliness
of processes and products. One such measure is the E-factor, introduced by Roger Sheldon in
1994. A reactions E-factor is the quotient kgwaste/kgproduct (here waste is everything formed in
the reaction except the desired product). The waste can be gases such as CO2 or NOx, water,
inorganic salts (e.g., NaCl, Na2SO4, or (NH4)2SO4), heavy metal salts, and/or
organic compounds. This is surprising, as we are used to thinking of such chemicals as
pollutants. In fact, E-factors increase substantially when going from bulk chemicals to fine
chemicals and specialties. This is partly because finechemicals production often involves
multistep syntheses, and partly because stoichiometric reagents are more often used for

The concept of ATOM ECONOMY, introduced by Barry Trost in 1991, is similar

to that of the E-factor. Here one considers how many and which atoms of the reactants are
incorporated into the products. With these two concepts, we can evaluate chemical reactions to
get a quantitative result.

Atom economy
Generations of chemists, especially organic chemists, have been educated to devise
synthetic reactions to maximize yield and purity. Although these are worthy goals, reactions may
proceed in 100% yield to give a product of 100% purity and still produce more waste than
product. In simplistic terms, Equation 2.1:
In which A and B react to give product C in high yield and high purity, also leads to
the formation of by-products (or waste) D and E in stoichiometric quantities. For many years

phenol was manufactured via the reaction of sodium benzene sulfonate (from benzene
sulfonation) with sodium hydroxide; the products of this reaction are sodium phenolate
(which is hydrolysed subsequently to phenol), sodium sulfite and water. Even if the reaction
proceeds in quantitative yield, it is evident from looking at the molecular weights of the product
(sodium phenolate) and unwanted by-products (sodium sulfite and water) that, in terms of
weight, the reaction produces more waste than product. Historically,however, the chemist would
not consider the production of this aqueous salt waste to be of any importance when designing
the process.

The atom economy concept proposed by Trost is one of the most useful tools
available for design of reactions with minimum waste. The concept is that for economic and
environmental reasons reactions should be designed to be atom efficient, i.e. as many of the
reacting atoms as possible should end up in useful products. In the example shown above all
the carbon atoms present in the starting material are incorporated into the product, giving a
carbon atom efficiency of 100%, but none of the sulfur ends up as useful product and hence the
atom efficiency for sulfur is 0%. Overall, the atom efficiency of the reaction is defined as the
ratio of the molecular weights of desired product to the sum of the molecular weights of all
materials produced in the process. In the above example the atom efficiency would be 116/260 or
Examining the E-factor for this reaction, we see that for every three moles
of benzophenone we produce one mole of chromium sulfate and six moles of water. The
molecular weight of benzophenone is 182.2 g mol1, so every kilogram of benzophenone contains
5.48 moles of benzophenone. This means that for every kilogram of benzophenone we generate
5.48/3 = 1.83 moles (or 0.717 kg) of
chromium sulfate and 10.98 moles (or 0.197 kg) of water. The overall Efactor is therefore given by Eq.


Nearly a whole kilogram of waste for every kilogram of product! Remember, this is for
the ideal case of 100% yield and 100% selectivity. In real life, the E-factor is usually
much higher, because product yields are less than 100% and the reagents are often used in
excess. Furthermore, in many cases one needs to neutralize acid or base side products, so the
overall waste amounts are even higher.
The E-factor and atom economy can be used for comparing reaction alternatives,
but we should remember that there are different types of waste. The reaction example above has
two by-products: chromium sulfate and water. Obviously, water is GOOD WASTE, while
chromium sulfate is BAD WASTE, so evaluating a synthetic protocol on the basis of only the
amount of waste produced is insufficient. To solve this problem, Sheldon put forward the concept
of the environmental quotient. By multiplying the E-factor by Q, an arbitrarily assigned hazard
quotient, this measure takes both the amount and the nature of the waste into account.
Assigning absolute Q-values to waste streams is difficult, because cases differ
according to location and type of waste. Nevertheless, the EQ gives a better measure of the
environmental impact of a process than the E-factor or the atom economy alone.


Green Metholodies
Propene oxide is an important bulk chemical, used for making propylene
glycol(propane-1,2-diol), polyethers, glycerol (propane-1,2,3-triol), and other products.
Currently there is no catalytic process for oxidizing propene directly to propene oxide using
molecular oxygen. The classic manufacturing route goes via chlorohydrin

The HCl by-product is neutralized with caustic soda or lime. Although this process
is wasteful and polluting, it still accounts for 40% of the global manufacture of propene oxide.
There are several alternatives to the polluting chlorohydrin route. One is the
styrene monomer propene oxide (SMPO) process, used by Shell and Lyondell.


It is less polluting, but couples the epoxide production to that of styrene, a hugevolume product. Thus, this route depends heavily on the styrene market price. Another
alternative, the ARCO/Oxirane process, uses a molybdenum.

catalyst, and couples the epoxidation of propene to isobutene oxidation.

The t-butanol that this generates as a by-product is then used as a gasoline additive
and a starting material for making methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE). The disadvantages
here are that Mo is a toxic heavy metal, and MTBE use is being phased out in the US
and Europe.


solvents are very useful. They can be used to
1. Place reagents into a common phase where they can
2. Dissolve solids so that they can be pumped from place to
3. Lower viscosity and facilitate mixing
4. Regulate temperatures of reactions by heating at reflux
5. Moderate the vigor of exothermic reactions
6. Allow recovery of solids by filtration or centrifugation
7. Extract compounds from mixtures
8. Purify compounds by recrystallization
9. Convert pyrophoric materials to nonpyrophoric solutions
(as for aluminum alkyls)
10. Remove azeotrope compounds from reactions
11. Clean equipment and clothing
12. Place a thin film of material on to a substrate
The disadvantages of solvents include the following:
1. Loss of 1015 million tons of solvents (with a fuel value
of 2 billion dollars) each year3
2. Reaction of lost solvents in air with nitrogen oxides in
sunlight to produce ground level ozone
3. Destruction of upper atmosphere ozone by chlorofluorocarbons
4. Toxicity of chlorinated and other solvents to workers
5. Miscarriages caused by ethers of ethylene glycol
6. Birth defects from exposure to solvents4
7. Fires and explosions that may result from use
8. Monetary cost
Aromatic solvents (benzene, toluene, etc), chlorinated and polychlorinated
solvents (carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, dichloromethane, etc) and other organic solvents
(DMSO, DMF, petroleum ether, diethyl ether, acetone, etc) are used in great quantities in many
laboratory and analytical techniques. The persistent solvents (non-biodegradable) are difficult to
recycle and their disposition is very expensive.
There are many smaller commercial sources of solvent emissions, including
dry-cleaning shops, printing establishments, metal-cutting fluids in machine shops, auto body
repair shops, and many others. The consumers also emit solvents from their homes when they
use paint remover, oil-based paints, adhesives, spot remover, charcoal lighter fluid, aerosol
cans of personal care products, hair spray, nail polish, and gasoline-powered tools, among many.
The use of chlorinated solvents minimizes the risk of fire, but causes toxicity problems, such as


liver damage and cancer. If other volatile solvents are used, all equipment in the plant must be
explosion-proof, which includes placing every electrical switch in a heavy metal container. The
limits being set on these volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from various products
are the subject of some controversy in the United States.
A tiered approach to this problem from the least change
to the most change might be the following:
1. Place something on the plant outlet to destroy or recover the solvent.
2. Enclose the operation so that the solvent is not lost.
3. Substitute a less harmful solvent.
4. Use supercritical carbon dioxide (also written as sc carbon dioxide) as a solvent.
5. Use water.
6. Use no solvent.
7. Switch to another process that eliminates the need for
the solvent.
8. Can we do just as well without the product made with the
For laboratory use and, perhaps, for small-volume production, another first stage can
be added. Microreactors, which require much less solvent, are being studied for fluorination,
DNA chips, and other uses.
One of principles of Green Chemistry is to promote the idea of greener
solvents (non-toxic, benign to environment), replacement in cases that can be substituted with
safer alternatives, or changes in the methodologies of organic synthesis, when solvents are not
Green Solvents and Alternative Methods
Green solvents have been characterized for their low toxicity, higher low solubility
in water (low miscibility), easily biodegradable under environmental conditions, high boiling
point (not very volatile, low odour, health problems to workers) and easy to recycle after use.

Ionic Liquids in Organic Synthesis. Are they Green Chemistry?

Ionic liquids are mixtures of anions and cations, molten salts, with melting point
around 100 oC, which can be used as alternative solvents in organic synthesis. Although the ionic
liquids do not comply full with green chemistry principles, they are very promising as
alternatives to organic solvents. Suitable for the construction of ionic liquids are
bulky asymmetric ions with a delocalized charge, although cation and anion need not both adhere
to these requirements.


Common or other otherwise valuable ionic liquid cations (a) and anions (b). R, alkyl group.
In the scientific literature there are a large number of research papers for the use
of ionic liquids in synthetic routes and various applications.

Synthesis of [bmim][BF4]. Step 1: nucleophilic substitution in either acetone or

dichloromethane (DCM). Step 2: anion metathesis in either ethyl acetate or acetonitrile.
1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate (abbreviated to [bmim][BF4])
Organic Synthesis in Water
Although water is considered a problem for organic synthesis and the purification
processes and drying in final products is very cumbersome, in recent years water is considered a
good solvent for organic reactions. A good example id the synthetic routes of the Diels-Alder
reactions in which the hydrophobic properties of some reagents makes water an ideal solvent.
Water as a solvent accelerates some reactions because some reagent are not soluble and provides
selectivity. The low solubility of Oxygen is also an advantage for some reactions where metal
catalysts are used.
Unfortunately due to reactivity and solubility issues water is not a suitable solvent
many chemical transformations, and as such the scope for applications is somewhat limited.


Having said this, the low solubility of substrates in water is not always an unsurpassable
restriction, with several on-water reactions reported in the literature.

Techniques for Organic Synthesis in Perfluorinated Phases

In some new methodologies chemists use perfluorinated diphasic solvents to
dissolve a catalyst with very long perfuorinated chain. These catalysts can be very effective and
provide high yields in some types of reactions where the catalysts play an important part.
Another advantage is that after the reaction the catalyst can be separated and recycled.
Supercritical carbon dioxide and supercritical water
A supercritical liquid is at a temperature and pressure above its critical point,
where distinct liquid and gas phases do not exist. The supercritical liquid can effuse through
solids like a gas, and dissolve materials like a liquid. In addition, close to the critical point, small
changes in pressure or temperature result in large changes in density, allowing many properties
of a supercritical fluid to be "fine-tuned". Supercritical liquids are suitable as a substitute for
organic solvents in a range of industrial and laboratory processes. Carbon dioxide and water are
the most commonly used supercritical fluids. Supercritical CO2 and water are considered
green solvents in many industrial processes, providing high yields in many reactions, and there
are many examples of their use in the scientific literature.
Organic Synthesis with Carbonic esters
Carbonic esters, such as DMC, dimethyl carbonate (CH3OCOOCH3) are
considered a new class of green solvents in many organic reaction processes. They can replace
methychlorides and dimethyl sulphate esters which are toxic and hazardous.

DMC can be used in methylation reactions of phenols, anilines and carboxylic acids. DBU is an
alternative solvent that can be used for methylation reactions of phenols, indoles and


An alternative approach to solvent substitution is to produce solvents from biomass. Not
only does this alleviate demand for depleting resources, but depending on the biomass used the
source can be replenished fairly rapidly and with little net pollution caused. Volatile bio-derived
solvents still retain the VOC hazards presented by many petroleum chemicals, and so this
solution is not comprehensive. The diversity of the potential feedstocks available but their
dissimilarity to petroleum means that a traditional organic solvent may not be feasibly supplanted
by an exact bio-derived version. However, the desirable physical properties characteristic of that
solvent will undoubtedly present themselves in the form of an easily accessible related

Application of Green Solvents



Of all the alternative reaction media, water has perhaps been used most extensively as
modifications to reagents are rarely required, and often the organic substrates do not even need to
be soluble in the aqueous phase for the reaction to proceed smoothly. Water has proven itself as a
very useful solvent for many types of reactions, including DielsAlder, aldol, other
epoxidation reactions and alcohol oxidations. More recently, the hydrophobic effect has been
used in its most extreme form, where the organic substrates are hydrophobic and insoluble; such
reactions are said to proceed on water.





Microwave Assisted Reactions

High Temperature, Superheated or Near Critical Water

When water is heated to high temperatures between 1001C (its usual boiling
point) and 3741C (its critical temperature) in a sealed vessel or under pressure,
its properties approach those of supercritical water (SCW) and its hydrogen


bond network breaks down. In this temperature range, water can be called
high temperature, superheated or near critical (NCW). It has a lower polarity density, viscosity,
and surface tension than water at room temperature. However, (hydrogen bond acceptor
remains constant with changing temperature, and diffusivity and specific heat
capacity increase.

What is Catalysis and Why is it Important?

we saw that one of the key objectives of green chemistry is waste minimization.
Moreover, we learned that a sustainable process is one that
optimizes the use of resources, while still leaving sufficient resources for future
generations. Catalysis is an important tool in both cases. In fact, as far as chemistry is
concerned, catalysis is the key to sustainability