Are Black Plastic Kitchen Tools Toxic?

 Do we need to get rid of our black plastic kitchen tools?  Katie Okamoto reports in a recent New York Times piece that "research suggests that there's a chance that black plastic in particular may contain low levels of toxic chemicals.  But she then notes that "a math error in one high-profile study led the authors to issue a correction, though the authors maintained there conclusion stands."

Let's look at that study and that error.  Joseph Brean at the National Post examines the paper and it's conclusions.  The study found that "using contaminated kitchenware could cause a median uptake of 34,700 nanograms of decabromodiphenylether," a fire retardant known as BDE-209.   By contaminated kitchenware they mean black plastic kitchenware.  The fire retardant makes it's way into the utensils by way of the recycling of plastics from various electronics, usually from Asia.  The BDI-209 is considered toxic by the EPA which has set a reference dose at 7000 nanograms per kg of bodyweight per day.  The reference dose is a dose below which there is not a serious risk toxic consequences.  The authors of the study than calculate the reference dose for a 60 kg adult as , nanograms per day and conclude that their median uptake is 80% of the reference dose.  The problem is that the reference dose for a 60 kg adult should be 60 x 7000 or 420,000 nanograms per day so that their median uptake number is on 8% of the reference dose which hardly seems cause for concern.  Nevertheless while the authors published a correction fixing the number they did not change their conclusion.

Okamoto goes on the list possible health problems from plastics in general including the dangers of microplastic generated from degradation of plastics in the environment.  She also notes that black plastic is difficult to sort and reuse in typical US community recycling processes.  She recommends replacing black plastic utensils with silicon utensils which seem functionally equivalent and not especially expensive.

While Okamoto's conclusions seem reasonable a least for customers purchasing new utensils, the information available hardly justify throwing your black plastic utensils away. The message might be that research from advocacy groups needs to be viewed with some skepticism.  The research discussed here came from the advocacy group "Toxic Free Future" and was published in Chemosphere, a peer-reviewed journal.  This is discouraging since the error is a simple one and it's discovery should have triggered some change in the conclusions of the paper which it did not.

The Cost of Cutting the Science Budget

 The administration's cuts to federal science funding could have substantial costs in long term economic development according to studies cited in a NYTimes report (04/30/2025) by NYT chief economics reporter Ben Casselman.  

Researchers like this may disappear as a result of Trump Administration

Science budget cuts

An American University study found that a 25% cut in science funding would result in a long term reduction of 3.8% in US GDP and a 4.4% reduction in government revenues.  That is comparable to the effects of the Great Recession which ended in 2009.  The reduction would occur over years rather than months, but it would be more lasting.  The AU study is consistent with other studies.  A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that government sponsored research accounted for 20% of the productivity growth since WWII.  An author of the Federal Reserve study, Texas A&M economist Andrew Fieldhouse, said, “If you look at a long period of time, a lot of our increase in living standards seems to be coming from public investment in scientific research, The rates of return are just really high.”

There is a tradition of private and philanthropic research support for hospitals, medical research institutes, commercial product development, and sometimes particular fundamental research resources like telescopes.  But government supports sustained long term research that provides fundamental understanding of the world around us and new knowledge that belongs to the public rather than private entities.  The studies suggest that this research is simply irreplaceable.

The report is obviously positive on science in general and by implication chemistry in particular.  One bit of context would be the extent to which large reductions in the science budgets would actually reduce the federal overall budget and particularly the federal deficit.

Synthetic Amber Fossils?

 

Sometimes scientists can't tell the difference between synthetic amber and real 

fossilized tree resin

Scientists are learning to make synthetic amber that can be indistinguishable from actual fossilized tree resin according to a NYTimes article (March 24, 2025) by Richard Fisher.  Citing an article in the journal "Scientific Reports" by researchers from the Field Museum in Chicago Fisher describes a process involving living tree resin, heat and pressure to yield a product similar in appearance to fossilized amber.  

The process resembles cooking a meal in a pressure cooker.  The process seems to have an effect similar to "diagenesis" which over millions of years can chemically transform biological materials in to rock.  While some of the synthetic samples were imperfect, a few had properties similar to amber fossils.  They were darkened, had fracture lines and were lustrous.  In some instances they appeared indistinguishable from fossilized amber.

The scientists hope to better understand the fossilization process and the effects it has on fossilized biomolecules.  This will facilitate a better understanding of the fossil record.

Amber forms by the free radical polymerization of several members of the labdane family of diterpenes and trienes.  These may differ among tree species.  With age the polymers grow and crosslink giving amber its characteristic translucent luster and smooth surface.  Further studies will be required to elucidate the biochemical details of actual fossilization processes.  

Particularly relevant to the chemical significance of these studies are the remarks quoted by Fisher of Maria McNamara, a paleontologist at University College Cork, Ireland, not involved in the study:

“What we really want to get a handle on is which resins polymerize faster,” she said. She also pointed out that a chemical analysis of the accelerated amber was necessary to know how close — or not — it was to the real stuff. “The tree resin has survived, but we need a proper, full chemical characterization,” she said.

Thus it turns out that chemistry is valuable in paleontology as it is in so many areas of science.

  

 

 

Government Agencies on the Source of the Covid 19 Virus

 

John Ratcliffe, new CIA Director

Julian E. Barnes reports in a New York Times piece of January 25, 2025 on the status of the debate in the intelligence community over the origins of the Covid 19 virus.  He reports that after years of asserting that insufficient information is available to draw conclusions the latest CIA assessment leans towards the "Lableak" theory as opposed to the theory that the virus originated naturally in a Wuhan animal market.

Citing "a senior intelligence official" Barnes reports that in the final weeks of the Biden administration Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, ordered a classified review of the pandemic's origins.  He instructed the analysts to take a position one way or the other.  It is this assessment that concluded that the virus somehow escaped one of the secure laboratories in Wuhan.  Ratcliffe who has long supported the Lableak theory made the decision to declassify the assessment.  The analysts' report says that the assessment is made with "low confidence" meaning that it is based on fragmentary and incomplete intelligence. Citing "intelligence officials" Barnes says that the assessment is not based on new intelligence but the result of reexamination of the same intelligence that has long been available.

Barnes says that "five agencies including the National Intelligence Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency assessed that natural exposure most likely caused the epidemic." But that assessment was also made with low confidence.

Barnes also says the two agencies, the FBI and the Department of Energy, assessed a lab leak origin, but they disagree on which lab was the source of the leak.

Perhaps the crux of the matter is in the following that Barnes summarizes from conversations with senior Biden administration officials responsible for the new analysis:

These officials say that there are powerful logical arguments for both the lab leak and the natural causes theories, but that there simply is no decisive piece of intelligence on either side of the issue.

To boost the natural origins theory, intelligence officers would like to find the animal that passed it to a human or find a bat carrying what was the likely ancestor of the coronavirus that causes Covid.

Similarly, to seal the lab leak, the intelligence community would like to find evidence that one of the labs in Wuhan was working on a progenitor virus that directly led to the epidemic.

Neither piece of evidence has been found.

In principle decisive evidence might be found in files hidden in one of the Wuhan labs, but finding such a thing would challenge even a very aggressive CIA.  Barnes reports the "senior Biden administration officials" think if the problem is ever resolved it will be through a scientific breakthrough rather than an intelligence coupe.

While the pandemic could be a dramatic example of chemistry gone badly awry, Barnes reporting makes the assertion that science, implicitly chemical science, is the key to finding what went wrong.  In that sense it strengthens the notion that chemistry can do good or ill depending on how we use it.  That is, of course, the realistic and ultimately positive view we would like to see encouraged.

 

 

Cleaning up the water using chemistry

 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/03/250331151253.htm

In this article, the chemical process they use involves adding granulated activated carbon, and superheating to 3000C to break down the forever chemical polyfluroalkyl substances, is not only able to clean certain types of plastic from water sources, but they can chemically convert it to grahene, which can be used in batteries, solar panels, and other electronics, repurposing the matter 

Batteries are More Deceiving than You Think

Lauren Leffer at ScienceNews wrote about an interesting concept that rechargeable batteries don’t actually last forever like most assume. She revealed through this article that as time goes on, these batteries become useless and just a waste of matter. This is due to leaking hydrogen. Gang Wan, a materials physicist and chemist from Stanford University explains that unwanted hydrogen fills into the positive end of the battery which then results in less room for charged lithium atoms which are key to maintaining charge and reactivity in the battery. The hydrogen comes from the battery’s electrolyte, which instead of hydrogen is supposed to transport the lithium ions but obviously fails. This then causes a ripple effect and ultimately decreases the lifespan of the battery. So even when not in use, it’s still losing energy.

Leffer provides basic information about the anatomy of a lithium-ion battery, showing through visuals how ions move between the anode and cathode ends of the battery to create a reaction that builds a charge. When hydrogen protons leak in the electrons break off and leak into the outer layers of the cathode causing all kinds of problems.

In order to conduct research on this, Wan switched the hydrogen in the electrolyte for deuterium. Deuterium is basically a variant of hydrogen. They tracked its movement with X-ray imaging and mass spectrometry. This is how they found that hydrogen is the main culprit for the cathode losing charge. The results from this research are helpful because it’s able to help come up with ways to alter the chemistry of batteries to reduce the amount of hydrogen reactions or even avoid them completely. More research is always needed but this is a solid first step.

Lastly, the article mentioned that another root of this issue is the desire to stuff an abundant amount of energy into smaller cells (high-voltage batteries) because it appeals to people more. Who wouldn’t want a battery with more energy, it sounds a lot more effective. Well, it’s been determined that higher voltage cathodes are not only more reactive but also tend to pull in hydrogen. So, finding another solution to this desire or just cutting out high voltage batteries altogether can help provide better quality batteries. Additionally, it would reduce the need to mine cobalt and lithium minerals. So overall, less work and better batteries in the end.

Leffer, Lauren. “Scientists may have an explanation for why some batteries don't last.” Science News, posted September 27, 2024.  Accessed 15 March 2025.

Posted by Stephanie Park via e-mail to Grandpa Doug

A surprising use for tea.

 

A recent study has uncovered an unexpected benefit of tea leaves: their ability to pull heavy metals, such as lead, from water, significantly reducing the risk of contamination. This is particularly important as many homes worldwide receive water from aging pipes that contain lead, which poses a serious health risk, especially to children. Lead exposure can cause developmental delays and behavioral issues. The study found that tea leaves, through their chemical compounds and surface structure, can absorb heavy metals, potentially lowering the amount of dangerous compounds people may unknowingly ingest through their water. With billions of cups of tea consumed globally each day, this discovery has significant public health implications.

The study, led by Vinayak Dravid, a materials scientist at Northwestern, examined how different types of tea, including black, green, white, oolong, and herbal varieties, performed in removing lead from contaminated water. Tea leaves contain catechins (C15H14O6), which act like “Velcro” to attract and bind to lead molecules. Black tea, with its wrinkled leaves due to roasting, proved to be the most effective in absorbing lead, while white tea, with its smoother leaves, performed less effectively. Interestingly, steeping time also played a crucial role—longer steeping times increased lead absorption but made the tea more bitter.

Despite the positive effects, the researchers noted that no level of lead exposure is considered safe. Even a small reduction in lead, however, could be meaningful, especially in areas with limited access to clean water or water treatment infrastructure. In the study, steeping black tea for five minutes removed around 15% of lead from water, a potentially helpful reduction in contaminated regions. However, steeping tea for longer durations made the tea undrinkable due to increased bitterness, limiting the practical application of this method.

The authors of the study emphasized that they were not aiming to influence policy decisions but to highlight an often overlooked benefit of a global practice. Their findings suggest that in countries where tea consumption is high, the ingestion of lead from drinking water could be reduced by as much as 3%. This research also opens the door to exploring tea as a potential scalable method for water purification, particularly in areas struggling with water contamination.

Originally published by the New York Times on February 28th 2025

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/science/tea-leaves-lead.html