Tag Archives: of

Who’s afraid of bromine?

Bromine


Bromine looks sinister – like something you might find on Dr Frankenstein’s workbench. But are people sometimes too hard on compounds made from element 35 of the periodic table?

As you read this article, you are probably surrounded by bromine – in the chair or sofa you are sitting on. In the carpet on your floor, the curtains at your window, perhaps even the walls of your house. And in the computer whose screen you are staring at.

All these things are likely to contain unnatural substances such as polybrominated diphenyl ether or hexabromocyclododecane. Bromine-based chemicals have also found their way into food and drinking water – indeed until recently they were added to drinks like Fanta and Gatorade.

Some of these chemicals have been shown to be dangerous to human health, and have been banned or withdrawn. Yet the bromine industry claims it is the victim of “chemophobia” – an irrational public prejudice against chemicals borne out of ignorance and misinformation.

Bromine saves lives, they point out.

There is no denying that pure bromine is extremely unpleasant. It derives its name from the Greek for “stench”, and it is a particularly vicious material – just ask Andrea Sella of University College London.

“When I was at school nobody had warned me about how nasty this stuff was,” the chemistry professor ruefully recalls, as he pours some of the toxic red liquid into a beaker, where it sits under a smog-like haze of heavy brown vapour.

In Elementary Business, BBC World Service’s Business Daily goes back to basics and examines key chemical elements – and asks what they mean for businesses and the global economy.

“I managed to spill a bit of bromine liquid on to the back of my hand, and it burned through the skin and left a long scab that took weeks to heal.”

Bromine is one of the halogens – the group of four elements that occupy the penultimate column of the periodic table. And it is probably the least well known – chlorine we know from swimming pools, iodine from antiseptics, and fluorine from toothpaste.

Being a halogen, bromine atoms are one electron short of a complete outer shell, which makes them highly reactive, readily bonding with other atoms. That is why pure bromine is so dangerous to handle, and also why you never come across it in nature.

Instead, bromine is commonly found in highly un-reactive bromide salts – in much the same way that the poisonous green gas chlorine is commonly found in boring sodium chloride, table salt.

To illustrate the point, Andrea drops some aluminium foil into his beaker of bromine. It bursts into intense flames. When the fire burns out, all that is left is a residue of aluminium and bromide salts.

It was from naturally occurring salt waters that two chemists independently discovered bromine two centuries ago – the German Carl Jacob Lowig from mineral water in 1825, and the Frenchman Antoine Balard from salt marsh seaweeds in 1826. Both used chlorine gas to displace the bromine atoms from their salt solutions, producing the characteristic acrid fumes of the new element.

Today, bromine is extracted on an industrial scale from salt lakes that are especially rich in the element, above all the Dead Sea.

“The Dead Sea has the highest concentration in the world of bromine,” says Ilan Elkan of Israel Chemicals Ltd (ICL) at the company’s bromine facility, the world’s biggest. “This is the gift of nature. Like Saudi Arabia has the gift of oil, we have the gift of bromine.” He claims it will last thousands of years, far longer than Middle Eastern oil.

ICL draws water down from the Dead Sea into a vast network of evaporation ponds that use the sun’s energy to concentrate the minerals. The thickened brines then flow through a series of chemical works that extract potash, magnesium metal and chlorine from the salts – and bromine.

Much of this toxic end-product is then shipped all over the world in gigantic lead-lined tanks – Ilan insists they have never had a spillage. Yet, as hazardous to human health as elemental bromine is, it is actually the products it goes into that have caused the real alarm.

The earliest use of bromine was in medicines. Some bromide salts, notably potassium bromide, were found to be natural sedatives, and were prescribed in the 19th Century as a remedy for epilepsy.

However, they had a curious side-effect. They dampened the libido, which only reinforced the common misconception at the time that epilepsy was brought on by excessive masturbation. This side-effect also lies behind the urban myth that bromide was added to the tea of prisoners and World War I soldiers in order to reduce sexual urges.

For most of the 20th Century, the main use of bromine was something now known to have been seriously damaging to public health. When lead first started being added to petrol to improve engine performance, it was found that deposits built up, eventually clogging the engine.

The solution was to add brominated chemicals to the petrol. As the fuel burnt, the bromine combined with the lead, producing lead bromide. This readily passed out through the exhaust, but of course then proceeded to spread the poisonous heavy metal throughout our cities.

Leaded – and brominated – petrol is no more. But the biggest modern use of bromine, accounting for 41% of the market, has also sparked controversy.

“Imagine you’re watching your television, and halfway through a soccer game your TV catches fire,” says ICL’s deputy president Anat Tal at their head office in Beersheva, southern Israel. “You have three minutes of escape time. What do you do? You just run!

“Now imagine the escape time is five-to-10 times more, because inside your TV is a brominated flame retardant. This is the story of flame retardants.”

A fire is a self-perpetuating chemical reaction in which the high temperature encourages fuel to combine with oxygen in the air, further raising the temperature in the process. Bromine disrupts this chemical reaction. Because the bromine is itself so hyper-reactive, in effect it cue-jumps the oxygen and re-bonds with the fuel, rendering it inert.

The metal that could power your neighbourhood

The perfect metal for bullets and missiles

A beautiful but poisonous metal

Why do we value gold?

A metal so light it floats on oil

Green, and deadly in the trenches

What we owe to a dull grey metal

The world’s building block

Up to our necks in a diabolical element

Brominated flame retardants crop up in a surprising number of places. From a bag, Anat produces, Mary Poppins-style, a series of products – white beads that are mixed into the plastic casings and circuit-boards of TVs and computers, fluffy yellow pillow stuffing that refuses to catch fire, and blue polystyrene bricks that are used as cavity wall insulation in homes.

So what’s the problem with these products?

Well, take for example, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which used to be widely used to prevent materials from melting. No longer. “It’s pretty dangerous if it gets into the human body,” explains chemical industry analyst Laura Syrett of Industrial Minerals. “It can cause cancer, developmental disorders, thyroid problems.”

Or how about hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) – the chemical in Anat’s blue cavity wall insulation. It is set to be banned in the EU next year, after an academic study in Texas in 2012 found that tiny amounts of the stuff were getting into some supermarket foods.

The retardants are organic molecules – an entirely different class of chemical from bromide salts – that can take years to decompose. And although they should be tied up inside plastics and other materials, when they do get free they tend to accumulate through the food chain – meaning top predators such as humans face a particular risk of these chemicals slowly building up in our bodies.

This highlights an unavoidable problem for the chemicals industry – much of what they do is still a learning process, and it often takes many years for the long-term risks inherent in a particular product to emerge. Yet it is also important to get these risks in perspective. So far, there are no known cases of brominated fire retardants actually causing anyone major health problems – they are being banned because of the potential hazard they pose. Meanwhile, these chemicals have undoubtedly saved people from the very real risk of burning to death in their own homes, although there is some dispute whether that amounts to the thousands per year claimed by the industry.

But Laura Syrett says the industry also labours under another problem – “chemophobia”.

As an example she cites brominated vegetable oil or BVO, which was commonly added as an emulsifier in soft drinks such as Fanta and Gatorade. Without BVO or a substitute, the orange colour would gravitate to the bottom of your bottle, leaving the top half clear. Something similar would happen to the flavour.

In 2013 Buzzfeed published an article with the title “8 Foods We Eat In The U.S. That Are Banned In Other Countries”. The list included BVO – banned in the EU and Japan – which it claimed was “linked to major organ system damage, birth defects, growth problems, schizophrenia, and hearing loss”.

Pepsi and Coca Cola insisted BVO was safe. Nonetheless, a petition on Change.org gathered 200,000 signatures, and both companies have since stopped using the chemical.

Was the campaign against BVO rational? The chemistry blogger Derek Lowe points out that the few people known to have suffered health problems (none of which were quite like those listed by Buzzfeed) were drinking a vast amount of BVO-containing drinks – in the order of two to four litres per day.

Another controversial case, according to Laura Syrett, is connected with fracking. In 2011, tests of drinking water wells in Pennsylvania found increased levels of bromide salts – the same kind of stuff that supposedly makes people prefer an early night with a hot water bottle – linked to fracking activity at the Marcellus shale deposit.

Bromide salts are widely used in oil and gas drilling. Being near the bottom of the periodic table, bromine atoms are heavy. Dissolve its salts in water and you get an exceptionally heavy brine that can be used to stabilise high pressure wells and stop them collapsing.

In the end, an error was found in the Marcellus tests – in reality only one well showed elevated bromide levels, not seven as originally reported. One case, Syrett suggests, is a long way from proving a causal connection.

At ICL, Anat complains that her company hears via the media and NGOs “almost on a daily basis… all kinds of things that are not scientifically proven”. Meanwhile, she points out, tourists are happy to come and bathe in the Dead Sea, with the world’s highest concentration of bromide at 0.5%, because of its “healthy” mineral salts.

The criticisms sting for an industry that feels it is actually doing a lot of good for the world. Besides fire retardants, one of the biggest new uses of bromine is in capturing mercury in the coal burned in power stations – in much the same way that it used to capture lead in the petrol burned in your car engine, except that this time it actually helps to stop the emission of a poisonous metal into the air.

As Anat laments: “The bromine industry has not done a very good job in PR, in educating people that there are chemicals there that save your life and keep you safe.”

It certainly does not help that so many of the chemicals they produce have such terrifyingly long and alien names… polybrominated diphenyl ether and hexabromocyclododecane, for example.

To put it another way, who would drink coffee if they knew it contained 1,3,7-Trimethylpurine-2,6-dione (caffeine)? Especially if you added a spoonful of ((2R,3R,4S,5S,6R)-2-[(2S,3S,4S,5R)-3,4-dihydroxy-2,5-bis(hydroxymethyl)oxapent-2-yl]oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxahexane-3,4,5-triol) – better known as sugar?

Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine’s email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox.

BP guilty of gross negligence

The 2010 explosion and subsequent oil spill cost 11 workers their lives and was the worst in US history


( bursa escort ) – -A US judge has ruled BP was grossly negligent in the lead-up to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The ruling could potentially cost BP billions more in compensation payments.

The New Orleans judge Carl Barbier also found BP subcontractors Transocean and Halliburton “negligent”.

The 2010 oil spill was the worst in US history, and BP has set aside $43bn (£26bn) to cover fines, legal settlements, and clean-up costs.

BP said in a statement that it strongly disagrees with the ruling and that it would appeal to a higher court.

The law is clear that proving gross negligence is a very high bar that was not met in this case, said the firm

Shares in BP fell 6% after the ruling was announced.

Judge Barbier said BP should shoulder 67% of the blame for the 2010 spill, with drilling rig owner Transocean responsible for 30% and cement firm Halliburton responsible for 3%.

He ruled that BP will be “subject to enhanced civil penalties” due to its “gross negligence” and “wilful misconduct”.

The ruling could quadruple the civil penalties that BP must pay as a result of the spill to an estimated $18bn.

Under the US Clean Water Act, a ruling of negligence would have meant BP was liable to pay $1,100 per barrel of oil spilled; gross negligence increases the penalty to $4,300 per barrel.

In its most recent annual report, BP said it had set aside $3.5bn for this case – an indication the firm had expected a more lenient ruling.

BP emphasised in its statement that it planned to argue during penalty proceedings for the lesser penalty.

In 2012, BP agreed to accept criminal responsibility for the disaster and agreed to pay $4.5bn to the US government, thus settling its criminal liability in the spill.

Now, legal efforts have focused on the amount of civil penalties the firm must pay, both to businesses and individuals affected by the spill and to cover environmental clean-up costs.

Also in 2012, BP reached a $9.2bn civil settlement and agreed to put $20bn into a trust to pay to businesses and individuals.

However, legal proceedings have continued after BP said it had been forced to pay compensation to some businesses and individuals who were not directly affected.

It is not clear what impact Judge Barbier’s ruling will have on the legal wrangling over that settlement fund.

A date to determine the total number of barrels of oil that were spilled in 2010 as well as a final civil penalty has not yet been announced.

US government experts have estimated a total of 4.2 million barrels spilled into the Gulf; BP has said the figure is closer to 2.45 million