Vidic 2:00
R04
ETHICAL DILEMMA: IS FLOW WORTH THE RISK?
Elena Ream (emr79@pitt.edu)
SCENARIO
I am working on research for a chemical
manufacturing company. The company wants to reduce their
output of toxic waste, but has limited economic resources to
go about researching new ways to make their products. One
of their products can only be made using a trichloroethylene,
a toxic and carcinogenic solvent [1]. Because so much
solvent is needed in batch chemical production, this solvent
creates a lot of toxic waste that must be treated. Some of it is
inevitably released into the environment, which is harmful to
public health [2].
The company I work for heavily values green
chemistry, which is a set of ideas for making chemical
processes more environmentally sustainable [2]. The
advancements of green chemistry have always been of
interest to me as a chemical engineer, which is one of the
aspects that drew me to this company. It has been my
assignment to research a method in which the material could
be synthesized while minimalizing solvent use.
My Role in the Company
I have been researching a method to synthesize this
product through flow chemistry for the past two years. Flow
chemistry is a fairly new development in chemistry. In flow
reactors, a constant flow of reactants is sent through very
thin tubes, called microtubes, in which chemical reactions
take place. This differs from traditional, or batch reactors, in
which all of the reactants are mixed together in a large
reaction vessel and the products are isolated after the
reaction [2]. I have been very interested in researching flow
processes since my first year of college because of their
implications for greener chemical processes. One of the
main benefits of flow reactors over batch reactors is that
flow reactors use significantly less solvent because of
smaller reaction surface area, which is why I have been
researching how flow chemistry might help with my
company’s environmental impact in this situation [2].
Through my research, I have developed a method to
synthesize our product through flow reactors on a small
scale. My work so far has shown that flow reactors could
decrease solvent use by 72%, which is fantastic news for my
company. However, one problem with the flow reactors is
that in 12% of trials, the tubes will become clogged. This
implies that large-scale flow reactors could require much
more maintenance than the traditional reactors, which would
use up resources and could delay production.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2014-10-28
FIGURE 1 [3].
An example of a larger scale flow reactor to demonstrate
what is being developed. The light in this reactor fuels the
reaction.
My task is to make the decision for our company to
either start researching and building large scale flow reactors
for this synthesis or to continue using batch reactors. I can
only base the decision on whether or not to move forward on
my small-scale research because of the investment largescale research would require. The flow reactors will cost a
significant amount of money to develop, and might not work
as efficiently as the old reactors. However, if successful flow
reactors could be built, it would significantly decrease my
company’s toxic waste output. My own personal interest in
flow chemistry and investments in my research lead me to
believe that flow reactors would be the best thing for my
company, but if I don’t use our resources wisely, I could be
putting the company at a great deal of risk.
CODES OF ETHICS
When I encounter difficult decisions in my engineering
career, it is always vital to consult the relevant codes of
ethics of my profession. Especially working in chemical
industry, which is the largest producer of toxic chemical
waste in the USA, I have a great responsibility to the
environment [4]. This responsibility is relevant in the codes
of both the National Society of Professional Engineers and
Elena Ream
“engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional
reports... They shall include all relevant and pertinent
information in such reports…” [6]. I cannot ethically follow
this code if I do not properly inform the supervisors in my
company of the possible problems with that could arise from
using flow reactors, or provide a truthful report on how the
development of such reactors would affect the company
financially. I need to inform them of the times our trials with
the small-scale flow reactors failed due to clogging, and that
it is a possibility that the large scale reactors would require
frequent maintenance.
A final and important canon of the NSPE that I must
consider in this dilemma is their fourth canon of ethics,
stating “engineers shall act for each employer or client as
faithful agents or trustees” [6]. I must remain faithful to my
company and act in their best interest. Environmental
concerns are important, but cannot come at the cost of
harming my company. Part of following this canon, as
described in the NSPE’s code of ethics, is that “engineers
shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that
could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the
quality of their services” [6]. Seeing as I have been working
on this flow chemistry project for the past two years with
this company, I am heavily biased toward implementing
flow reactors.
I would like to see what I have been researching
become a reality in how this product is manufactured, and
should inform those ranking above me in the company of my
own personal interests. I can offer a great deal of sound
advice due to my specialty in the subject and the research I
have conducted, but perhaps the responsibility of making the
final decision for the company should be left up to
somebody with a more objective point of view in order to
eliminate bias.
the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, as well as
within the Principles of Green Chemistry.
Responsibility to the Environment
Earlier, I mentioned Green Chemistry, an important
concept to my company and all professionals working with
chemistry. Among the Twelve Principles of Green
Chemistry, as listed by the American Chemical Society, is
“it is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste
after it has been created,” and “wherever practicable,
synthetic methods should be designed to use and generate
substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health
and the environment” [5]. In regards to this particular
synthesis, using less of the required toxic solvent could
decrease both waste production and the release of
trichloroethylene into the environment, which would
decrease public exposure to carcinogens. Flow reactors
allow the company to use less solvent, and based on these
principles, seem to be the ethically correct thing for our
company to invest in. Even so, there is much more to
consider.
The first canon of the NSPE code of ethics states that
“Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public” [6]. This canon is very important to
my decision. I know that flow chemistry can help improve
public safety by decreasing pollution. This principle is
similarly stated under the professional obligations of the
NSPE. It states that “Engineers shall at all times strive to
serve the public interest,” which also includes that
“Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of
sustainable development in order to protect the environment
for future generations” [6]. Certainly, it is not only in my
company’s best interest protect the environment we live in,
it is our personal responsibility to others in our community
and in our world. In using such a hazardous solvent, the
company should keep public health in mind.
Likewise, the AIChE code of ethics states that
chemical engineers must “[use] their knowledge and skill for
the enhancement of human welfare” [7]. This is very
applicable to my current situation. After researching flow
reactors, I know that this application of engineering can be
used to improve my company’s impact on the environment.
From these codes of ethics, it seems obvious that I should
urge my company to move forward with the development of
large-scale flow reactors.
CONSIDERING THE FACTS
Though the company’s final decision on whether or not
to implement flow reactors in this synthesis may not
ultimately be in my hands, it is still my responsibility to
offer the best advice. To do this, I need to look more closely
at the possible benefits and detriments of this new
manufacturing method.
If we introduced techniques of flow chemistry in this
particular large-scale synthesis, it would put the company
ahead of other chemical manufacturers in environmental
compatibility. Not only would this bring my company, and
my own research, prestige, but could lead to other
companies adopting similar techniques to decrease toxic
waste emissions. Success with flow chemistry could lead to
a lasting, positive environmental effect from chemical
manufacturers. It is important to consider the future of
chemical processes when we decide what to work on today,
pertaining to green chemistry [8].
Also, due to the fact flow reactors require much less
energy than batch reactors and that less waste will need to be
Responsibility to the Employer
Still, with limited funding, I need to consider how
much my company’s current approach to synthesis is
adversely affecting the environment. If the company is not
violating any regulations its waste output, is it still the
company’s responsibility to invest in making processes even
more sustainable? And what about the economic and
production risks associated? The NSPE also states,
2
Elena Ream
treated, successful flow reactors could save the company a
great deal on energy. If the company decided to research the
large-scale reactors, I could make a clear estimate on how
long it would take for money saved with the new reactors to
make up for their cost.
However, if we decide to develop these flow reactors
and they do not work as well as we had hoped, it would set
the company back greatly. It would have a very negative
impact on the company’s reputation. The company would be
investing a significant amount of money in this risk, and
while there is a high chance for it to bring great success,
much could go wrong. I know that our company does not
have very much money to spare at the moment, and the
possibility of harming the company is something that must
be considered. I do not think it is ethical to advice my
company to do something that could hurt its reputation and
ability to invest in other new innovations. Is the opportunity
to be slightly greener in one of its syntheses worth this
potential setback? I believe that it would be best to consult
those responsible for the company’s finances and human
resources in order to provide the best advice for my
company.
community, I sought out a documentary piece on chemical
waste. In an episode of Earth Focus from Link TV, I learned
about toxic pollution in the town of Toms River, New
Jersey. The town was home to a dye manufacturing plant.
The plant dumped a great deal of waste into the river in
ways that were entirely legal at the time. This contaminated
river was a main source of drinking water for the town,
unknown to the citizens. Today, the citizens feel there is
reason to believe that this pollution is the cause for many
cases of childhood cancer and other health issues. One of the
toxic culprits in this situation was trichloroethylene, my
company’s solvent [10].
Looking at Examples
I know that I will need to discuss the risks of further
research with the responsible parties, but now it is up to me
to think about the worth of the company’s environmental
impact. One resource I will go to is a case study in
engineering and its environmental impact. In the case to
which I am referring, an environmental engineer working for
a manufacturing company has noticed that pollution in a
nearby lake is over the legal limit. However, the process of
fixing this issue would cost somewhere over $200,000,
which the engineer’s company cannot easily afford. His
manager suggests that he adjusts the report so that the
company appears fall within its regulations, because the
costs of fixing the problem would hurt the company’s
reputation and would cause many employees to lose their
jobs [9].
This differs from my situation in that my company is
not violating any pollution regulations and that the jobs of its
employees are not on the line, so there is much less at stake.
However, this situation does involve an engineer deciding
whether or not to put their company at risk for the sake of
the environment. If I were placed in this case, I would report
that the company had an excess of pollution. Though this
would hurt the company, I believe that the manufacturing
company has a responsibility to keep the environment safe
and clean. With this in mind, should I do the same thing in
my case, even with a smaller risk than the engineer in the
case study?
The answer is not as clear, but my thoughts on this
more extreme example lay a good guideline for how to think
of my current situation. To gain a better understanding of
how chemical waste affects the nearby environment and
FIGURE 2 [10].
Michael, a child from Toms River who survived a cancer of
the sympathetic nervous system, likely caused by
carcinogenic emissions from a nearby dye manufacturing
plant.
Just because what the manufacturing plant did not do
anything illegal does not mean that it did not have a
detrimental effect on public health. If there is anything in my
power to decrease public exposure to this hazardous
chemical, I feel that it is my responsibility to advise the
company to do as such. Watching this documentary helped
me see how pollution can affect individuals, and reinforce
the weight of my responsibility to the public as a chemical
engineer.
The documentary also led me to think about growing
up in my own hometown, where my mother was my biggest
resource for all moral dilemmas. It only seemed appropriate
to ask her opinion on this issue, and it would be good to
have the direct input of somebody who is not involved in
chemical manufacturing. Though she offered no definitive
solution to whether or not to go forward with research, she
agreed that public health should be my greatest concern. As
a parent, she found the stories of childhood cancer in Toms
River disturbing, and thought that the prevention of such
illness was worth the risk. It was good to speak to the person
that helped me develop my own personal moral code, and
she confirmed my thoughts about the environment [11].
3
Elena Ream
Angewandte Chemie International Edition. (online article).
DOI: 10.1002/anie.201007599
[9] National Academy of Engineering. (2006). “Exceeding
Pollution Limits.” Online Ethics Center for Engineering.
Retrieved from:
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Pollution.aspx
[10] “Toxic Futures: Untold Stories of Chemical Pollution.”
Earth Focus. Link TV. (2014). (video).
https://www.linktv.org/programs/earthfocus/video/2668152589001
[11] N. Miller. (2014, October 28). Phone Interview.
FINAL WORD
Because of my personal bias after working with
research in flow chemistry for so long, I am in no place to
make my company’s final decision on whether or not to
develop large-scale flow reactors to develop its product. The
solvent that my company must use, trichloroethylene, is
toxic and carcinogenic, and while flow reactors would
decease solvent use, it is a risky venture. The trials on a
small scale during research were not always successful,
implying that the large scale reactors could require extensive
maintenance or not work at all. I will tell the company this
information so that they can make an informed decision on
whether or not it is worth the financial investment. However,
I will also let the company know that taking a risk by
pursuing flow chemistry further would make the process
much greener, would be much healthier to the public, and
would help make the company a leader in green chemical
processes.
ADITIONAL SOURCES
C. A. Marques. (2014, July 1). “Environmental
Sustainability: implications and limitations to Green
Chemistry.” Foundations of Chemistry. (online article).
DOI: 10.1007/s10698-013-9189-x
F. Gupton “Going with the Flow: Flow Chemistry and
Breaking Barriers to Innovation.” TED Talks. (2013).
(video).
R. Sanghi, V. Singh. (2012). Green Chemistry for
Environmental Remediation. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
(ebook). pp.90-94.
Standford University. (2014). “Adaptation of a Safe
Component.” Ethics case studies in biodesign. Retrieved
from:
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/19safecompon
ent.jsp
Standford University. (2014). “To Release, or Not to
Release: An Engineer’s Perspective.” Ethics case studies in
biodesign. Retrieved from:
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/21releasequesti
on.jsp
REFERENCES
[1] Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. (2011,
March 3). “Tricholorethylene (TCE).”
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid
=30
[2] P. Floreancig. (2014). Lecture. UHC Organic Chemistry
I. University of Pittsburgh.
[3] J. Knowles, L. Elliott, K. Booker-Milburn. (2012,
November 21). “Flow photochemistry: Old light through
new windows.” Beilstein J. Org. Chem.
http://www.beilsteinjournals.org/bjoc/single/articleFullText.htm?publicId=18605397-8-229
[4] Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). 2012 Toxics
Release Inventory National Analysis Overview. (online
report).
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201401/documents/complete_2012_tri_na_overview_document.p
df
[5] American Chemical Society, P. Anastas, J. Warner.
(1998). “12 Principles of Green Chemistry.” Green
Chemistry: Thoery and Practice. (online publication).
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/greenchemistry/what-isgreen-chemistry/principles/12-principles-of-greenchemistry.html
[6] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007).
“Code of Ethics for Engineers.” (online publication).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/
CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
[7] American Institute of Chemical Engineers. (n.d.). “Code
of Ethics.” (online publication).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[8] H. Frank, L. Campanella, F. Dondi, et al. (2011, July 27).
“Ethics, Chemistry, and Education for Sustainability**.”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Paul Floreancig for
introducing me to the topic of flow chemistry as well as
toxic solvents. I would like to thank Kausthubha Yaratha for
providing advice on research and for on how to go about
writing and formatting this paper.
4
Elena Ream
5