摘要:

Much has happened in the last twelve months in green chemistry. It continues to gain research prominence internationally, which is reflected in an ever-increasing number and quality of manuscripts received by the RSC for publication in the journalGreen Chemistry. The journal is the premium journal for green chemistry, coming in with its first officially impact factor of 2.5—a great result for a journal which is now only in its fifth year. Many seminal papers have been published, and much progress has been made in bringing the journal to the fore. This is through the efforts of the contributing authors from many countries, the Editorial team, the Board, and the International Advisory Board. The enthusiasm for the journal in the wider context has been gratifying and I take this opportunity to thank all those involved in making it happen.The journal is dedicated to green chemistry, with publications embracing the principles of green chemistry, which are found sprinkled in other journals, and as a multidisciplinary field there are a large number of such journals spanning the sciences and engineering. It is difficult to make a direct analysis of the percentage of overall publications which embrace the principles of green chemistry, but nevertheless it is rather small. Authors publishing inGreen Chemistry, in addition to publishing in the premium journal for green chemistry, have their articles more exposed to the green chemistry community, beyond their own allied field. Such exposure must also be a significant benefit in advancing the field, and in this context, I encourage all potential authors to publish inGreen Chemistry.There has been some criticism that publications in the journal have been biased towards chemical synthesis and reaction media. This is in part a consequence of the link between green chemistry and the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. However, this is far from the full spectrum of green chemistry and we need to increase the scope of the journal. Publications are welcomed in ALL areas, including engineering, bio-catalysis, metrics, sustainable development, life cycle analysis, teaching, materials science, textile industry, bio-catalysis, and renewable resources,etc. These reflect the scope of material presented at conference dedicated to green chemistry.Green Chemistryis a forum to facilitate the understanding of the value and importance of the field and to set standards and goals for the science. Quantifying the ‘greenness’ of a reaction or process (green chemistry metrics) need to further evolve. Toxicity is a key issue, and toxicity testing is important for green chemistry to move forward, as part of the march towards sustainable technologies. Toxicity will need to be considered in journal articles in the near future—watch out for details. Practicing researchers need to think about toxicity. It is no good saying ‘we have done well with high yields, high atom efficiencyetc.,’ if there are serious toxicity issues.Interest in green chemistry continues to increase in the academic, government and industrial sectors, and well as in the wider community where there is a realisation that green chemistry has the potential to ultimately develop sustainable technologies. With this increase and hopefully flow-on effect for the journal, we are looking for support of the journal in several ways, foremost submitting research papers. Then there are reviews, perspectives, and news articles, and the important refereeing of the papers to ensure we publish quality articles. For the latter, we would appreciate feedback on potential referees. Conferences dedicated to the green chemistry are more frequent, and beyond the journal there are books dedicated to the field, the most recent by Mike Lancaster, entitled ‘Green Chemistry, An Introductory Text’, also published by the RSC.I embarked on research initiatives in green chemistry in the late nineties with university incentive seed funding for new research initiatives, while at Monash University. In the early days it was a case of discussing possible research in the field with colleagues, and once the research had been identified and started, I was amazed at the successes. In retrospect it became apparent that applying the principles of green chemistry increases innovation. There is a perception that research in green chemistry is too restrictive, particularly in the chemical sciences, but my experience is that it is more of a challenge, the innovation is up, and new chemistry is inevitable. It already has environmental and sustainable issues factored in, and therefore it is more likely to lead to down stream applications. This aside, there are winds of change for researchers, to encourage them to consider ‘greening’ their research. This is coming from postgraduate choice of research projects, pressures from industry and the community, and also pressures from government policy associated with targeting specific areas of research. Governments around the world are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of the field, which often comes under the umbrella of ‘sustainability’. A rather provocative view, is that chemists have a moral obligation in taking on green chemistry as a contribution towards sustainable technologies.Researchers should not feel that they need to make a quantum leap forward to advance green chemistry. Indeed, a quantum leap can be dangerous unless there is careful planning—‘right the first time’. Incremental changes can result in big improvement in ‘greenness’, such as waste minimisation, resource utilisationetc., perhaps while not entirely ‘green’. Many researchers tend to stay in a loop—innovation leading to experiments leading to interpretation of results, refining the innovation, back to more experiments, and the cycle continues. Factoring in green chemistry is a paradigm shift, moving out of this circle, potentially with greaterGreen chemistry is complex, covering often disparate areas, and my vision for the journal is one of bringing all the areas of green chemistry to the journal, including metrics, life cycle analysis, and toxicity.

ISSN:1463-9262    

DOI:10.1039/b302755h

出版商:RSC    

年代:2003

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Green Chemistry and engineering refers to the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances, while keeping economic, as well as environmental, viability in mind. By virtue of more efficient use of raw materials and energy, products and processes that follow green chemistry principles are inherently more profitable and, thus, green chemistry and engineering are vital to the future of the U.S. chemical industry. An excellent example is the redesign of the sertraline process by Pfizer, an innovative technology that earned Pfizer a 2002 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award. Sertraline is the active ingredient in the antidepressant drug Zoloft, which had global sales around $2.4 billion in 2001. Through fundamental process changes, Pfizer eliminated 440 metric tons of titanium dioxide wastes, 150 metric tons of 35% hydrochloric acid, and 100 metric tons of sodium hydroxide per year. Solvent usage was reduced from 60,000 gallons to 6,000 gallons per ton of sertraline produced. By implementing green chemistry principles, Pfizer has doubled overall yield, decreased raw material, energy, and water usage, and increased profitability.The adoption of green chemistry and engineering technologies by industry is dependent upon advances in basic research. While some of this work is being performed in industry, significant contributions have been made by academia. Thus, government funding for green chemistry and engineering research is vital to the development of cleaner, safer and more profitable technologies. However, government funding for green chemistry and engineering research in the United States has been rather limited.The primary mechanism for funding green chemistry and engineering research has been the NSF/EPA Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program. This program has awarded $45.8 million over six competitions since 1995. Projects have focused on a wide variety of research topics, such as less harmful solvents (e.g., water, supercritical CO2), biocatalysis, use of renewable feedstocks, process modeling and optimization, and life cycle assessment. The TSE program has been extremely successful in eliciting green chemistry and engineering proposals. As a result, funding success rates have been as low as 7%. This low success rate may well discourage good researchers from even applying to this program. The TSE program has been combined with the New Technologies for the Environment program into the new 2003 Environmental Technologies and Systems solicitation, which seeks proposals on fundamental and applied research in the physical and biological sciences and engineering that will lead to environmentally-benign methods for industrial processing/manufacturing; sustainable construction processes; and new science and technologies for pollution sensing and remediation. Since the overall program funding is just $9.5 million, and green chemistry and engineering is just one part of the solicitation, this cannot be considered a serious commitment to federal funding for green chemistry and engineering research.Projects that could be classified as green chemistry and engineering are certainly funded by a number of other federal agencies, including DOE, DoD, and USDA. The DOE catalysis program, for example, promotes catalysis for green manufacturing technologies and the development of basic science for making new materials and processes for upgrading biobased feedstocks in terms of carbon management. The DoD sponsors a thin films coating program that supports research to eliminate VOCs and heavy metals from coatings. Through its Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products program, the USDA seeks to promote new processes and new uses of bio-based materials, such as nutriceuticals, pharmaceuticals and biopesticides. Pockets of research funding within government agencies are important in engaging a broad constituency but are no substitute for a large-scale program focused on green chemistry and engineering research.Anecdotal evidence suggests that government programs not specifically targeted at green chemistry and engineering or components thereof have, in some cases, actively discouraged proposals that identify themselves as green chemistry or green engineering. There appears to be a perception that the TSE program or programs from other agencies, such as those described above, that specifically solicit this type of research, should be sufficient to support all green chemistry or engineering research. Thus, it is difficult to identify any significant number of grants from, for instance, regular NSF programs, that might be considered green chemistry or green engineering research.Because some green chemistry and engineering technologies are funded through several government programs, it is challenging to quantify the exact amount of funding that is given for this type of research. Nonetheless, it is clear that funding for green chemistry and engineering still remains a very small part of overall R&D funding. For instance, the TSE program has averaged only $5.7 million/year, in comparison to the overall NSF annual budget of $4.8 billion (fiscal year 2002), or the NSF Chemistry Division overall budget of about $150 million. Thus, NSF funding for green chemistry and engineering amounts to only 0.12% of the overall NSF budget and, by comparison, is just 3.8% of what is spent by the Chemistry Division. Even assuming that green chemistry and engineering funding through other agencies is ten times that of the TSE budget, this still pales in comparison with the overall federal spending on research and development of more than $100 billion annually. Considering the importance of green chemistry and engineering to the future of the U.S. chemical industry, the current government investment in this field can only be classified as appalling.It is imperative that government funding for green chemistry and engineering be transformed from its current pilot program status to true investment in the nation’s future. A multifaceted approach is needed to implement a comprehensive program. All government funding agencies should work to incorporate programs and incentives for green chemistry and engineering in their portfolio. For some agencies, this will mean dramatically increased funding for programs specifically targeted for green chemistry and engineering. For others, this may mean designing new programs. NIH, for example, has a vested interest in the development of greener technologies that will minimize the use and production of toxic materials, thereby safeguarding human health. Green chemistry and engineering should also play an important role in the new U.S. Department of Homeland Security. By eliminating the use of hazardous materials in chemical plants, these facilities could then no longer be used as potential weapons by terrorists. Another mechanism to promote green chemistry and engineering would be to add new criteria to proposal evaluation that requires all researchers to be cognizant of the environmental impact of their work. At all agencies, incentives must be provided for program directors to fund green chemistry and engineering research in ways that do not negatively impact other programs. Furthermore, proposal reviewers with an understanding of green chemistry and engineering must be actively recruited to review proposals with a strong green chemistry and engineering emphasis.In summary, there seems to be growing awareness in both academic and industrial scientific and engineering communities of the importance and benefits of green chemistry and engineering. In its 10-Year Outlook report on Complex Environmental Systems, NSF states that ‘Chemical synthesis and manufacturing processes (must)design inrather than justadd onenvironmentally sound technology.’ However, the U.S. government investment in green chemistry and engineering does not seem to match the rhetoric. We call on all federal agencies to significantly increase their investment in green chemistry and engineering research in order to ensure a safe, sustainable, and secure future for our nation.

ISSN:1463-9262    

DOI:10.1039/b302758a

出版商:RSC    

年代:2003

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

The Green Chemistry Institute (GCI) is a non-profit organization within the American Chemical Society (ACS) founded to promote green chemistry through research, education, information dissemination, conferences and symposia and international collaborationGCI works across disciplines and academic, government, and industry sectors to promote the development and implementation of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. Worldwide interest in green chemistry is reflected in over 20 international chapters currently affiliated with the Green Chemistry Institute.See the GCI website: http://chemistry.org/greenchemistryinstitute

ISSN:1463-9262    

DOI:10.1039/b302756m

出版商:RSC    

年代:2003

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Environment- and resource-saving syntheses and processes contribute significantly to sustainable development.1,2Catalysis plays an important role and is, therefore, applied frequently in synthesis. Efficient use of resources and lowering costs can be achieved not only by improving the conversion of substrates to a product, but also by recycling the catalyst.3Different approaches have been taken to recycling homogeneous catalysts,e.g.aqueous systems,4fluorous biphase chemistry5or multicomponent solvent systems.6Another possibility is the immobilization of homogeneous catalysts on a solid support.7,8However, maximal recycling of catalyst material should not lose sight of the disadvantages that are potentially connected with it. For example, reverting to environmentally friendly aqueous media always means to include a new compartment in which possibly hazardous substances will be emitted and, thus, a new disposal route to be treated. As well as costs, the intensive production of new alternative (e.g. fluoric and ionic9) solvents has an impact on the environment, to which even a minimal loss of substances and/or their disposal contribute. Therefore, the fourth of the twelve ‘more’ green chemistry principles of N. Winterton claims to measure catalyst and solvent losses in air and aqueous effluent.10Moreover, a full mass-balance should be established (third principle10), which makes use of reagents, auxiliary materials, etc. A holistic view is necessary.11,12Mass balances of alternatives can be compared using metrics such as theEfactor13and mass index S−1.11,14TheEfactor (ratio of waste [kg] to product unit [kg]) is an output orientated indicator, whereas the mass index S−1(ratio of all raw materials [kg] to the product [kg]) is an input orientated indicator. These metrics and the cost index CI (CURRENCY UNIT per kg product) clarify the benefits and drawbacks of changes in synthesis design,i.e. the strong and weak points, which must be addressed.Two examples of important synthesis protocols for carbon-carbon bond formation, aldol condensation and Michael reaction are examined. The aldol reaction of acetophenone and benzaldehyde is usually base-catalyzed, as demonstrated inScheme 1a) −c).Aldol reaction catalyzed by a base (a),15(b),16(c)17or by the recyclable Nafion H (d).The yields resulting from the use of protocols a) to d) are 75, 71, 85 and 78%, respectively. The base must be neutralized and/or washed out during the work-up procedure. The solid-acid Nafion H,on the other hand, can be reused (Scheme 1d).Nafion H (7–9 mesh) and K 40 were obtained from Aldrich and Süd-Chemie, respectively. In one experiment, catalyst bleeding, ‘leaching’, of FeCl3was not observed.19Products were characterized by1H NMR and mass spectrometry as well as by comparing their physical properties with those reported in the literature.Chalcone by means of Nafion H (Scheme 1d): Acetophenone (3 g, 24.96 mmol) and benzaldehyde (2.65 g, 24.96 mmol), both freshly distilled, were stirred for two days at 97 °C in the presence of Nafion H (1 g). Using a Pasteur pipette, the reaction mixture was separated from the Nafion H pellets. The catalyst was washed twice with 2 ml ethanol that was used to crystallize the product. More product was obtained from the mother liquor via crystallization (1.5 ml ethanol) and Kugelrohr distillation (160-170°C, 10−1mbar) to give a total amount of 4.06 g (78%).Verification of the recyclability of Nafion H in the chalcone synthesis: In presence of Nafion H (0.25 g), benzaldehyde (0.5 g, 4.71 mmol) and acetophenone (0.25 g, 2.08 mmol) were stirred at 105 °C (oil bath) for 8 h. Using a Pasteur pipette, the mixture was removed from the catalyst, which was washed with few acetone. Another nine cycles were performed with the same catalyst. The yields were practically identical (75% and 76%).Ethyl 2-oxo-1-(3-oxo-butyl)-cyclohexanecarboxylate (Scheme 2c,i.e. in presence of K 40): In several portions 2-butenone (5.76 g, 82.2 mmol) was added to ethyl 2-oxocyclohexanecarboxylate (9.8 g, 57.6 mmol) containing K 40 (0.98 g). The mixture was stirred for two days at room temperature. The catalyst was filtered off through a fine filter paper and washed with 2 ml of ethanol. The distillation yielded 10.56 g (76%) of the product. The protocol ofScheme 2bwas followed19as described in the literature.20Fig. 1shows a quantitative comparison of methods a) to d) (Scheme 1) and, especially, that protocol d) is the most effective procedure with regard to mass efficiency: S−1= 2.7 kg kg−1compared to 5.6 (a), 7.8 (b) and 6.8 (3.0 without water) (c) and E = 1.7 kg kg−1compared to 4.6 (a), 7.0 (b) and 5.8 (2.0 without water) (c). Not only solvents and auxiliary materials can be saved according to protocol d), but the catalyst too, is reusable (at least ten times, therefore, see ‘Recycling’) without having a negative effect on the yield. This leads to a decrease in the E factor to 1.5 kg kg−1in synthesis d). Correspondingly, resources are saved as can be seen from the mass index S−1. It is possible to avoid an additional disposal route, the waste water treatment that will be mandatory especial in synthesis c). To obtain an idea of how to estimate the material costs of raw materials in alternative systems, the cost index CI is used to identify the relevant cost drivers (Fig. 2). If the materials are purchased from Aldrich (see current catalogue) and assuming that Nafion H is recycled, synthesis d) is the most economical (23.7 EUR kg−1). However, because the costs of substrates d) are slightly higher than in c), measures should be taken to increase yield.Mass index S−1and environmental factor E of the a) KOMe, b) NaOMe, c) NaOH and d) Nafion H catalyzed synthesis of chalcone according to Scheme 1 using the software EATOS.11Cost index CI of the a) KOMe, b) NaOMe, c) NaOH and d) Nafion H catalyzed synthesis of chalcone according to Scheme 1 using the software EATOS.11The second example, the Michael-reaction (Scheme 2), can also be base- or Lewis acid- catalyzed. Because procedures a) and b) (Scheme 2) have the disadvantages of catalyst loss in homogeneous catalysis, the heterogeneous Lewis acid, K 40, a FeCl3-supported montmorillonite, was examined (Scheme 2c). Yields of protocols a) to c) are 70, 85 and 76%, respectively.Michael reaction catalyzed by a base (a),15a Lewis acid (b) or a solid Lewis acid K 40 (FeCl3supported on montmorillonite) (c).According toFig. 3protocol a) with S−1= 3.6 kg kg−1requires between twice and three times the amount of raw material as b) and c). Protocol b) avoids a resource intensive work-up, therefore, the generation of waste (see E factor) is lower by about one order of magnitude compared to a).Mass index S−1and environmental factor E of the a) NaOEt, b) FeCl3and c) K 40 catalyzed synthesis of ethyl 2-oxo-1-(3-oxo-butyl)-cyclohexanecarboxylate according to Scheme 2 using the software EATOS.11The consequence of using protocol c) and implementing a reusable catalyst (K 40) is a decrease in yield as shown in the yellow segment ‘Byproducts’ in synthesis c). This, of course, has an impact on the amount of substrates necessary to produce one kilogramme of product (compare ‘Substrates’). Additional solvents are necessary to extract the product from the catalyst after filtration. Because the activity of the catalyst decreases significantly already in the third run, this catalyst cannot be attributed to the segment ‘Recycling’ like Nafion H (Fig. 1). Spent K 40 must be disposed of or be treated after a few runs. In contrast, very small amounts of cheap iron(III) chloride are required in synthesis b). Therefore, compared to chemical problems of other catalytic systems, the effort required to save the catalyst in the Michael reaction (Scheme 2) is unjustified.In conclusion, Nafion H seems to be an efficient catalyst for performing aldol condensation to yield chalcone in an environmentally friendly manner, i.e. avoiding the use of water and reducing the amount of solvent. In contrast, application of K 40 to the Michael reaction has advantages over traditional base catalysis but does not effectuate an increase in mass efficiency, in contrast to the protocol for homogeneous catalysis using iron(III) chloride. These examples demonstrate that the application of alternative catalytic systems must always be looked at from a holistic point of view that takes the full mass-balance into account. In systems more complicated than those described here for demonstration purposes, the integration of preliminary processes will possibly become necessary. For instance, we examined three four-step routes and one three-step route to ethyl (R)-2-hydroxy-4-phenylbutyrate, which is an important intermediate in pharmaceutical industry for Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) inhibitors;e.g.Benazepril (Novartis) and Cilazapril (Roche). Interestingly, based on the data available the route showing an overall yield of 50% and an enantiomeric excess of 76% performs better with regard to mass efficiency than an alternative showing a yield and enantiomeric excess of 99%. Main reasons are solvent demand and other substrates than the key-substrate to which the yield refers.18

ISSN:1463-9262    

DOI:10.1039/b301753m

出版商:RSC    

年代:2003

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Over the last decade, green chemistry has been a topic of numerous conferences and workshops all over the world. These symposia have provided excellent opportunities for the scientific community to exchange ideas, to foster the concept, and to develop the field to its current fertile state. The large majority of these events have tried to demonstrate the full variety of possible approaches to sustainable chemistry, covering a wide range of disciplines and methodologies. The fast growing activities in the field of green chemistry encouraged us to organise a more specifically targeted conference, bringing together researchers for a focussed and in-depth discussion of an individual area in its full scientific detail. Under the auspices of DECHEMA, and with the constant support of Drs. Kurt Wagemann, Dana Schleyer and Barbara FeisstGreen Solvents for Catalysisfrom 13–16 October 2002, in Bruchsal, Germany.The vast majority of chemical transformations occur in the solution phase, and the solvent is a strategic parameter in the implementation of such processes on a laboratory and industrial scale. On a molecular level, the solvent helps to bring reagents in direct contact and stabilises or destabilises intermediates and transition states. In process design, the use of solvents determines the choice of work-up procedures and recycling or disposal strategies. The interplay of molecular and process engineering is particularly important for reactions involving organometallic catalysts. Within the framework of green chemistry, innovative concepts for the substitution of volatile organic solvents in organometallic catalysis have become the focus of interdisciplinary research activities all over the world. Promising approaches include catalysis utilising aqueous biphasic systems, ionic liquids, supercritical media, fluorinated phases or thermoregulated systems.The response to the announcement ofGreen Solvents for Catalysisfar exceeded our expectations: the conference attracted over 220 scientists from 24 countries out of 4 continents. One third of the participants came from industry, demonstrating the high relevance of the topic for technical application. The share of students reached almost 25% and 14 young scientists were brought in with the aid of industrially sponsored travel grants. The scientific programme consisted of 30 oral presentations and 71 posters. To overcome classical borders, the programme was structured according to reaction types and chemical processes, which theme ran throughout the meeting. In many presentations, the potential of individual concepts to open new opportunities beyond solvent replacement became clearly visible. The present volume ofGreen Chemistrycontains a selection of contributions from the Bruchsal Meeting. All the papers published here were subject to the normal RSC peer review system, and the topics discussed give a flavour of the broad variety of reactions and processes that were discussed at the symposium.In addition to the scientific discussion, there was plenty of room for informal exchange of ideas and networking. One highlight was certainly the candlelight dinner in the beautiful baroque castle of Bruchsal. At this occasion, the local wines were discovered as another attractive solution phase by most participants.The final day reflected the fruitful scientific discussion throughout the conference with overview lectures from industrialists, comparing and contrasting the various solvent systems. The conference closed with a panel discussion, collecting an extremely enthusiastic feedback from the audience. As a natural consequence, it was decided to hold a follow-up conference onGreen Solvents for Synthesisat the same location from 3–6 October 2004.LEFT to RIGHT – Walter Leitner (Lehrstuhl fur Chemie und Petrolchemie, RWTH, Aachen, Germany), Kenneth Seddon (Queen’s University Belfast Ionic Liquids Laboratory (QUILL)) and Peter Wasserscheid (Institut für Technische Chemie und Makromolekulare Chemie, RWTH Aachen, German

ISSN:1463-9262    

DOI:10.1039/b302757k

出版商:RSC    

年代:2003

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

BackgroundDuring the course of the past year, there has been a heightened degree of focus on sustainability due in some part to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. The discussions in preparation for that meeting as well as the statements and declarations that resulted provide ample evidence of a growing consensus that the world faces serious challenges to its sustainability. Sustainability for the purposes of this discussion will be defined as according to the Brundtland Commission, ‘The ability to meet the needs of the current generation while preserving the ability of future generations to meet their needs.’ A simpler way of expressing this idea may be, ‘Preserving the things you cannot live without and preserving them forever.’Any listing of the major challenges facing the sustainability of Earth will generate debate and refinement. However, most may agree that among the most pressing issues facing the planet would be the following:• Population growth• Energy• Food supply• Resource depletion• Global climate change• Water• Toxics generation and dispersionIt would be reasonable to argue that the above list, both individually and collectively, constitute the major challenges to sustainability. As such, these issues must constitute our highest priorities since the failure to meet these challenges will mean that the human society may not be around to meet any others. What role does green chemistry have to play in meeting these challenges and the ultimate goal of sustainability? Green chemistry fulfills a fundamental and crosscutting role that is essential to the critical pathway toward sustainability. Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine a way to address the challenges of sustainability without engaging in green chemistry.To understand some of the challenges our society must confront, it is useful to recognize that society has previously been on an unsustainable trajectory. In fact, one hundred years ago there were predictions that the volume of waste produced by the increasing number of horses in the New York City would virtually bury the entire population. This future was not avoided by placing a legal ban on horses. Rather, it was through the engagement of science and technology and the invention of alternative personal transportation means that the trajectory was changed.Furthermore, meeting the challenges requires a planning perspective of the century or longer timeframe rather than merely focusing on years or decades. For example, a resource planner in the year 1900 would want to ensure that there was an ample supply of whale oil in the year 2000 for lighting, wood for fuel, rock salt for refrigeration and horses for personal transportation. By relying on such resources, society was on an arguably unsustainable trajectory. Again, it was through the engagement of science and technology that shifted society toward greater growth and sustainability. Similarly, in order to shift society from the current projected unsustainable trajectory, it is once again necessary to engage science and technology to achieve the goal of sustainability with green chemistry as part of the foundation.

ISSN:1463-9262    

DOI:10.1039/b211620k

出版商:RSC    

年代:2003

数据来源: RSC