DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Safer and Effective Alternatives for Coating Removal Products

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Safer and Effective Alternatives for Coating Removal Products Assessment of Safer and Effective Alternatives for Coating Removal Products Gregory Morose, Jason Marshall, Alicia McCarthy Toxics Use Reduction Institute January 24, 2020 TURI Report 2020-001 All rights to this report belong to the Toxics Use Reduction Institute. The material may be duplicated with permission by contacting the Institute. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute is a multi-disciplinary research, education, and policy center established by the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989. The Institute sponsors and conducts research, organizes education and training programs and provides technical support to help Massachusetts companies and communities to reduce the use of toxic chemicals. For more information, visit our website (www.turi.org), write to the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 126 John St., Suite 14, Lowell, Massachusetts 01852), or call 978-934-3275. ©Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1 Approach .................................................................................................................................... 1 Determine the Requirements ............................................................................................... 2 Conduct EHS, Cost, and Performance Evaluation ................................................................. 3 Research into New Safer Solvent Blends .............................................................................. 5 II. Evaluation Results ....................................................................................................................... 7 Requirement 1: Environmental, Health, and Safety .................................................................. 7 GreenScreen Assessments .................................................................................................... 7 Dermal Exposure ................................................................................................................. 14 Inhalation Exposure ............................................................................................................. 17 Additional Chemical Mixture Evaluation for New UMass Lowell Formulation .................. 17 Requirement 2: Fire Hazard ..................................................................................................... 18 Evaporation Measurement ................................................................................................. 19 Fire Hazard Test ................................................................................................................... 24 Requirement 3: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Content ................................................. 27 Requirement 4: Cost ................................................................................................................ 28 Requirement 5: Technical Performance for a Range of Coatings and Substrates ................... 32 Test Procedure .................................................................................................................... 33 Methylene Chloride Comparison Test................................................................................. 35 Extended Dwell Time Test ................................................................................................... 36 Coatings on Wood Test Panels ............................................................................................ 36 Coatings on Masonry Blocks ............................................................................................... 42 Automotive Coatings ........................................................................................................... 43 Boat Coatings....................................................................................................................... 49 Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC) ......................................................................... 52 Adhesive Coatings ............................................................................................................... 55 Bathtub Coatings ................................................................................................................. 57 Asphalt/Tar Coatings ........................................................................................................... 60 Latex Splatter Coatings ........................................................................................................ 62 Furniture Refinishing ........................................................................................................... 64 Requirement 6: Penetration of Multilayer Coatings ............................................................... 66 Requirement 7: Shelf Life ......................................................................................................... 67 III. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 69 IV. References ............................................................................................................................... 70 Appendix 1: Coating Removal Product Solvents and TURA .......................................................... 72 Assessment of Safer and Effective Alternatives for Coating Removal Products iii Appendix 2: GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals ............................................................................. 73 Appendix 3: Hansen Solubility Parameters................................................................................... 76 Appendix 4: Dermal Exposure....................................................................................................... 77 Appendix 5: Fire Hazard ................................................................................................................ 81 Flash Point ................................................................................................................................ 81 Fire Hazard Test Method .......................................................................................................... 81 List of Tables Table 1: GreenScreen Benchmark Levels for Chemicals Used in Coating Removal Products ...................... 8 Table 2: GreenScreen Hazard Assessment Results ....................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Solvents Used in Coating Removal Products with Methylene Chloride........................................ 10 Table 4: Solvents Used in Coating Removal Products with Other Benchmark 1 Chemicals ....................... 11 Table 5: Coating Removal Products with NO Benchmark 1 Chemicals ....................................................... 13 Table 6: Coating Removal Products with No Benchmark 1 Chemicals But Containing Solvents with No GreenScreen Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 14 Table 7: Skin Permeability Results for Solvents in Coating Removal Products ........................................... 16 Table 8: Strypeeze Solvents ........................................................................................................................ 20 Table 9: Evaporation Test Results ............................................................................................................... 24 Table 10: Fire Hazard Mitigation Method for Coating Removal Products .................................................. 26 Table 11: VOC-Exempt Solvents .................................................................................................................. 28 Table 12: Retail Pricing for Coating Removal Products ............................................................................... 29 Table 13: Methylene Chloride Products Used for Performance Testing in TURI Laboratory ..................... 35 Table 14: Performance Testing Conducted ................................................................................................. 35 Table 15: Wood Panel Test Results for Methylene Chloride Products ....................................................... 38 Table 16: Wood Panel Test Results for Products with No Benchmark 1 Chemicals ................................... 39 Table 17: Wood Panel Test Results for Products with Other Benchmark 1 Chemicals .............................. 40 Table 18: Dwell Times for Wood Panels ..................................................................................................... 40 Table 19: Extended Dwell Time Test Results for Wood Panels .................................................................. 41 Table 20: Masonry Block Test Results for Methylene Chloride Products ................................................... 42 Table 21: Masonry Block Test Results for Products with No Benchmark 1 Chemicals ............................... 43 Table 22: Masonry Block Test Results for Products with Other Benchmark 1 Chemicals .......................... 43 Table 23: Oven Dwell Times for Automotive Coatings ............................................................................... 44 Table 24: Dwell Times for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Triphenyl Phosphate CASRN 115-86-6
    EPA Document# EPA-740-D-20-010 April 2020 United States Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Triphenyl Phosphate CASRN 115-86-6 April 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................5 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................8 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................11 2 SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ...................................................................................................11 2.1 Reasonably Available Information ..............................................................................................11 Search of Gray Literature ...................................................................................................... 12 Search of Literature from Publicly Available Databases (Peer-Reviewed Literature) .......... 13 Search of TSCA Submissions ................................................................................................ 19 2.2 Conditions of Use ........................................................................................................................19 Categories
    [Show full text]
  • SDS for Taylor Mason's Hygrometer
    SAFETY DATA SHEET Preparation Date: 3/11/2015 Revision Date: 3/11/2015 Revision Number: G1 Product identifier Product code: T2256 Product Name: TRIETHYL PHOSPHATE Other means of identification Synonyms: Ethyl phosphate TEP Triethoxyphosphine oxide Phosphoric acid, triethyl ester CAS #: 78-40-0 RTECS # TC7900000 CI#: Not available Recommended use of the chemical and restrictions on use Recommended use: Used as a catalyst in the production of acetic anhydride by the ketene process, as a desensitizing agent for peroxides, and as a solvent and plasticizer for cellulose acetate. Solvent; plasticizer for resins, plastics, gums; catalyst; lacquer remover. As a plasticizer, solvent, fire-retarding agent, anti-foaming agent As an ethylating agent, and as a raw material to prepare insecticides such as tetraethyl pyrophosphate. As ethylating agent; formation of polyesters which are used as insecticides.. Uses advised against No information available Supplier: Spectrum Chemicals and Laboratory Products, Inc. 14422 South San Pedro St. Gardena, CA 90248 (310) 516-8000 Order Online At: https://www.spectrumchemical.com Emergency telephone number Chemtrec 1-800-424-9300 Contact Person: Martin LaBenz (West Coast) Contact Person: Ibad Tirmiz (East Coast) 2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Classification This chemical is considered hazardous by the 2012 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) Acute toxicity - Oral Category 4 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 2A Label elements Product code: T2256 Product name: TRIETHYL 1 / 12 PHOSPHATE Warning Hazard statements Harmful if swallowed Causes serious eye irritation Hazards not otherwise classified (HNOC) Not Applicable Other hazards Not available Precautionary Statements - Prevention Wash face, hands and any exposed skin thoroughly after handling Do not eat, drink or smoke when using this product Wear eye/face protection IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 2,572,806 MANUEFACTURE of TETRAETHY, PYROPHOSPAATE John Sterling Harris, Richmond Heights, Mo., Assignor to Monsanto Chemical Company, St
    Patented Oct. 23, 1951 2,572,806 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 2,572,806 MANUEFACTURE OF TETRAETHY, PYROPHOSPAATE John Sterling Harris, Richmond Heights, Mo., assignor to Monsanto Chemical Company, St. Louis, Mo., a corporation of Delaware No Drawing. Application May 1, 1948, Serial No. 24,683 2 Claims, (C. 260-461) 2 This invention relates to compositions con enty known to the art. A still further object of taining increased amounts of tetraethyl pyro this invention is to provide biological toxicant phosphate, and more. particularly to a process compositions containing increased amounts of for the manufacture of tetraethyl pyrophosphate. tetraethyl pyrophosphate which poSSeSS over Compositions containing tetraethyl pyrophos 5. S00% greater biological activity for the combat phate are widely used as agricultural economic ing and control of pests such as aphids and mites poisons, particularly against many insects such than do the compositions containing tetraethyl as aphids and against many acarina such as the pyrophosphate which are presently known to red Spider mites, however, such compositions may the art. be used generally against the lower forms of life O In the practice of this invention, the mixtures which, in the past, have been combatted by the of reaction products from the processes of this use of nicotine or nicotine salts. Furthermore, invention contain substantially 40%, that is tetraethyl pyrophosphate has been found useful 38-45%, of tetraethyl pyrophosphate as con in the preparation of insectivoricide and rodenti trasted with the processes of the prior art which cide compositions. 5 yielded mixtures of the reaction productS con While the art has disclosed several methods for taining only 10-15% of the tetraethyl pyrophoS the preparation of tetraethyl pyrophosphate, phate.
    [Show full text]
  • (VOC) and Organophosphate Flame Retardants (OPFR) in Building Materials
    Identification of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and organophosphate flame retardants (OPFR) in building materials Daniel Duberg 2017-05-29 Exam project, 15 HP, Chemistry Supervisor: Thanh Wang, Josefin Persson Examiner: Tuulia Hyötyläinen Abstract Humans today spend most of their time in various indoor settings such as housing, schools and workplaces. The quality of the indoor environment is therefore of great significance for our wellbeing. However, it has been suggested that the indoor environment contains over 6000 organic compounds, such as various volatile organic compounds (VOC). Around 500 of these compounds is believed to be due to emissions from different surrounding building materials such as insulation, plastic film, sealants and flooring. This study targeted building materials from three low energy preschools that were sampled and analyzed for emissions of VOCs and nine different organophosphate flame retardant compounds (OPFR) using a gas chromatograph coupled to a mass spectrometer (GC/MS). Low energy buildings are buildings that is particularly air tight to be so energy efficient as possible. The study uses a qualitative approach and therefore mainly identifies possible contribution from building materials to indoor environment. More than 100 different VOCs was identified and the most noticeable were meta-, ortho- and para-xylene, toluene, n-hexane and propylene glycol, all but the last compound is associated with hazardous health effects. The building materials that emitted the largest amounts of VOCs was sealants and adhesives. Linoleum flooring and acrylic was also large emitters. Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCIPP) were identified in all samples and all nine targeted OPFR compounds were identified in the various material samples and dust samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Interagency Committee on Chemical Management
    DECEMBER 14, 2018 INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13-17 REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR WALKE, PETER Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 II. Recommended Statutory Amendments or Regulatory Changes to Existing Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements that are Required to Facilitate Assessment of Risks to Human Health and the Environment Posed by Chemical Use in the State ............................................................................................................................ 5 III. Summary of Chemical Use in the State Based on Reported Chemical Inventories....... 8 IV. Summary of Identified Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Reported Chemical Inventories ........................................................................................................... 9 V. Summary of any change under Federal Statute or Rule affecting the Regulation of Chemicals in the State ....................................................................................................... 12 VI. Recommended Legislative or Regulatory Action to Reduce Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Regulated and Unregulated Chemicals of Emerging Concern ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Triphenyl Phosphate (TPP)
    EPA Document# EPA-740-R-20-010 August 2020 United States Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention Final Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Triphenyl Phosphate (TPP) CASRN 115-86-6 August 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................6 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................9 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................12 2 SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ...................................................................................................12 2.1 Reasonably Available Information ..............................................................................................12 Search of Gray Literature ...................................................................................................... 13 Search of Literature from Publicly Available Databases (Peer-Reviewed Literature) .......... 14 Search of TSCA Submissions ................................................................................................ 24 2.2 Conditions of Use ........................................................................................................................24 Categories
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,395,935 B1 Baurmeister Et Al
    USOO6395935B1 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,395,935 B1 Baurmeister et al. (45) Date of Patent: May 28, 2002 (54) USE OF PHOSPHORIC ACIDASA (52) U.S. Cl. ....................................................... 568/302 HOMOGENEOUS CATALYST DURING THE (58) Field of Search .......................................... 568/302 PREPARATION OF KETENE (75) Inventors: Jochen Baurmeister, Eckernförde; (56) References Cited Thomas Schäfer, Heppenheim, both of U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS DE (DE) 2.278,537 A 4/1942 Dreyfus et al. ............. 260/547 (73) Assignee: Axiva GmbH (DE) 2.856,426 A 10/1958 Estabrook ................... 260/547 3,378,583 A 4/1968 Van Bogaert ............... 260/547 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 3,836,583 A 9/1974 Matthias et al. ......... 260/585.5 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days. DE 2O59292 6/1972 (21) Appl. No.: 09/485,257 GB 478303 1/1938 (22) PCT Filed: Jul. 24, 1998 Primary Examiner Sreeni Padmanabhan (86) PCT No.: PCT/EP98/04654 ASSistant Examiner J. Parsa (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Connolly Bove Lodge & S371 (c)(1), Huitz LLP (2), (4) Date: Apr. 27, 2000 (57) ABSTRACT (87) PCT Pub. No.: WO99/07662 The invention relates to a process for the catalytic pyrolysis PCT Pub. Date: Feb. 18, 1999 of acetic acid for preparing ketene and/or Secondary (30) Foreign Application Priority Data products, which comprises Spraying, as catalyst, phosphoric acid in the form of a liquid jet into the acetic acid vapor. Aug. 7, 1997 (DE) ......................................... 19734 275 (51) Int. Cl.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1967-68 National Chemical Laboratory Poona 1967-1968
    National Chemical Laboratory Poona ANNUAL REPORT 1967-68 NATIONAL CHEMICAL LABORATORY POONA 1967-1968 COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SPONSORED PROJECTS PRIVATE PARTIES INTERMEDIATES 1. Benzoic acid 2. Industrial chemicals from diketene.. 3. Nonylphenol DYES 4. Alizarin 5. Anthraquinonoid intermediates and dyes 6. Chlorinated copper phthalocyanine TERPENOIDS 7. Improvements in the process for the manufacture of /-menthol from dementholised peppermint oil 8. Utilization of longifolene and A3-carene 9. Utilization of terpene-G DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS 10. Calcium hypophosphite 11. Carbimazole 12. Chemical investigation of ipecac root 13. Megimide 14. Radio-opaque dyes 15. Sodium cyclamate 16. Sorbide nitrate 17. Sulphacetamide and its sodium salt CATALYSTS AND INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS 18. BD-catalyst 19. Calcium silicate PULP AND CARBOHYDRATES 20. Rayon grade pulp from some species of woods PERFUMERY CHEMICALS 21. (S-Phenethyl alcohol 22. Production of perfumery grade geraniol, citronellal and citronellol from Indian lemongrass MISCELLANEOUS 23. Analysis of organic compositions of industrial importance 24. Steroids and wax from sugarcane pressmud n 25. Screening of NCL compounds by Bristol Laboratories, Syracuse, ( N. Y.) for pharmacological activity 6 CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES 26. Composite drug research scheme on Indian medicinal plants .. - 7 27. Fabrication of Electron Diffraction Camera . • 7 28. Constitution of lac .. • ? 29. Lac dye .. .. 7 30. Titanium tetrachloride from ilmenite .. 8 31. Pulping of Kashmir soft woods .. .. 9 32. Investigation of mixture of hard woods from Bastar forest for dissolving pulp ,. .. 9 PL-480 SCHEMES 33. Chemical and thermodynamic properties of refractory materials at high temperatures .. .. 9 34. Work on investigations on the synthesis and properties of new type glycol monoalkyl ethers for the control of water evaporation to extend the industrial utilization of cotton seed oil .
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Trilateral Understanding of Flame Retardants and Their Use in Manufactured Items
    Project Report Enhancing Trilateral Understanding of Flame Retardants and Their Use in Manufactured Items Supply Chain Analysis of Select Flame Retardants Contained in Manufactured Items Used in Indoor Environments Summary Report – Phase I December 2015 Please cite as: CEC. 2015. Enhancing Trilateral Understanding of Flame Retardants and Their Use in Manufactured Items: Supply Chain Analysis of Select Flame Retardants Contained in Manufactured Items that are used in Indoor Environments. Montreal, Canada: Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 33 pp. This report was prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) for the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The information contained herein is the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the CEC, or the governments of Canada, Mexico or the United States of America. Reproduction of this document in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes may be made without special permission from the CEC Secretariat, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. The CEC would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication or material that uses this document as a source. Except where otherwise noted, this work is protected under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial–No Derivative Works License. © Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2015 ISBN (e-versions): English: 978-2-89700-095-0; French: 978-2-89700-097-4; Spanish: 978-2-89700-096-7 Disponible en français – Disponible en español Legal deposit—Bibliothèque
    [Show full text]
  • Table 3: Protective Action Criteria (PAC) Rev. 29 Based on Applicable 60-Minute Aegls, Erpgs, Or Teels
    Table 3: Protective Action Criteria (PAC) Rev. 29 based on applicable 60-minute AEGLs, ERPGs, or TEELs. The chemicals are listed by CASRN. May 2016 Table 3 presents a list of chemicals and associated PAC values in numerical order based on the CASRN1 for each chemical. Chemicals without an identified CASRN number are issued an identification number, preceded by the letter “z” for purposes of identification in the PAC data set. PACs are presented in either ppm or mg/m3. The columns presented in Table 3 provide the following information: Heading Definition No. The ordered numbering of the chemicals as they appear in this listing by CASRN Chemical Name The name of the chemical substance submitted to the PAC development team CASRN The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number for this chemical PAC-1 Based on the applicable AEGL-1, ERPG-1, or TEEL-1 value PAC-2 Based on the applicable AEGL-2, ERPG-2, or TEEL-2 value PAC-3 Based on the applicable AEGL-3, ERPG-3, or TEEL-3 value Units The units of the original request (ppm or mg/m3) Chemicals for which AEGLs are available have their chemical name, CASRN, and AEGL values displayed in a bolded and larger font. Chemicals for which ERPGs are available, but no AEGLs, have their chemical name, CASRN, and ERPG values displayed in a bolded font. Chemicals for which TEELs are available, but no AEGLs or ERPGs, have their chemical name, CASRN, and values displayed using a regular font. Additional information on PAC values, TEEL values, and links to other sources of information is provided on the Subcommittee on Consequence Assessment and Protective Actions (SCAPA) webpage at http://orise.orau.gov/emi/scapa/default.htm.
    [Show full text]
  • Closed-Loop Design of Proton Donors for Lithium-Mediated Ammonia Synthesis with Interpretable Models and Molecular Machine Learning
    Closed-Loop Design of Proton Donors for Lithium-Mediated Ammonia Synthesis with Interpretable Models and Molecular Machine Learning Dilip Krishnamurthy,1† Nikifar Lazouski,2† Michal L. Gala, 2 2 1 Karthish Manthiram ∗ and Venkatasubramanian Viswanathan ∗ 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 2Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA †Equally Contributing Authors; ∗E-mails: [email protected], [email protected] In this work, we experimentally determined the efficacy of several classes of proton donors for lithium-mediated electrochemical nitrogen reduction in a tetrahydrofuran-based electrolyte, an attractive alternative method for pro- ducing ammonia. We then built an interpretable data-driven classification model, which identified solvatochromic Kamlet-Taft parameters as important for distinguishing between active and inactive proton donors. After curating a dataset for the Kamlet-Taft parameters, we trained a deep learning model to arXiv:2008.08078v2 [physics.chem-ph] 19 Aug 2020 predict the Kamlet-Taft parameters. The combination of classification model and deep learning model provides a predictive mapping from a given proton donor to the ability to produce ammonia. We demonstrate that this combina- tion of classification model with deep learning is superior to a purely mecha- nistic or a data-driven approach in accuracy and experimental data efficiency. 1 Introduction Ammonia is an industrial chemical that is used to produce a variety of nitrogen-containing compounds, such as fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and polymers (1, 2). In addition to being a useful synthetic molecule, ammonia (NH3) is also emerging as an attractive carbon-free en- ergy carrier, as it can be liquefied at moderate pressures (>10 bar) at room temperature (3, 4); the volumetric density of liquid ammonia greatly exceeds that of lithium-ion batteries and is competitive with other chemical storage media, such as pressurized and liquid hydrogen (5).
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Years of Progress with <I>LONZA</I>
    100 YEARS OF PROGRESS WITH LONZA 259 CHIMIA 51 (1997) Nr. 6 (Juni) 1 0 0 ye a rs of progress with Lonza Chimia 51 (1997) 259-269 1. Early Days, First Crisis: Lonza © Neue Schweizerische Chemische Gesellschaft Pioneers and Their Achievements lSSN 0009-4293 1.1. The Path to Electrochemistry Since prehistoric times, man has used 100 Years of Progress with fire to change materials. First wood and charcoal, then later coal and gas were the LONZA main fuels, producing temperatures up to 1300°. In 1800, Volta, a physicist from Como in Italy, invented the electric cell Walter Eschenmoser* which supplied a constant electric current for the first time. Decades later, Berzelius Abstract. In the past century, Lanza has developed from an hydroelectric plant into a in Sweden and the English chemist specialized, globally operating chemical company. This growth was not a foregone Humphry Davy succeeded in separating conclusion but the fruit of innovative drive, market orientation, and bold decisions in difficult times. These attitudes are described in the following article that outlines the *Correspondence: Dr. W. Eschenmoser development of the product range from calcium carbide to organic intermediates and LonzaAG to highly sophisticated chemical and biotechnology-based exclusive manufacturing for Mi.inchensteinerstrasse 38 leading life science companies. CH-4002 Basel Fig. 1. View from Lotschental ofLonza' sfirst production plant in Gampel, where calcium carbide was manufactured from 1898 to 1964 and calcium cyanamide from 1915 to 1970. Photographed around 1915. 100 YEARS OF PROGRESS WITH LONZA 260 CHIMIA 5/ (1997) Nr. 6 (Juni) chemical compounds using an electric in Norway, produced significant advances 1.5.
    [Show full text]