Communicating Chemistry (2022W209) – Page 2 – Great communication takes great chemistry

Acrylic Nails: Are They Worth the Damage?

Among young adult and teen women, acrylic nails have become a popular trend. Despite the range of nail designs possible through acrylic nails, this beauty routine is hotly debated due to exposure to toxic chemicals.

What are acrylic nails?

Long and Complex nail designs can be achieved using acrylic nails (credit: Bvasilev1, Wikipedia Commons)

Acrylic nails are a form of nail extensions that use a liquid and powder formula to create a sturdy fake nail. The powder contains poly(methyl methacrylate), also known as acrylic glass. Acrylic glass is a type of synthetic plastic polymer. This polymer gets activated when in contact with the liquid monomer used in acrylic nail formation. This liquid contains ethyl methacrylate (EMA) and an inhibitor. The inhibitor prevents immediate polymerization between the liquid and powder. The polymer powder is dipped into the monomer to create a malleable bead that is shaped to fit the client’s nail. Within minutes of application, the mixture cures, forming a solid layer.

The debate against acrylic nails

Many health experts argue against the use of acrylic nails due to the harsh chemicals used in their creation. EMA is particularly concerning. Particles of this highly reactive monomer are likely to remain unpolymerized after the nail has cured. This can cause redness, swelling, and pain in the customer’s nail bed. The reactivity and negative effects of monomers have been discussed at length. Prior to EMA, methyl methacrylate (MMA) liquid monomers were used. MMA has since been banned by the Food and Drug Administration due to severe damage to nails and allergic reactions.

Acrylic nails often use chemicals such as toluene, phthalates, methacrylic acid, and formaldehyde. These chemicals have been proven to cause asthma, allergic reactions, short-term memory loss, and irritate eyes, throat, and lungs.

The effects of these chemicals on clients’ nails and overall health have made acrylic nails a debated service. This argument also extends to nail technicians who are surrounded by these chemicals every day.

Acrylic nails can cause damage to the natural nail when not applied or removed by a professional (credit: Pickpik)

The pros of acrylic nails

Despite some backlash regarding the chemicals used in acrylic nails, many people continue to advocate for this practice due to its strength, cost, and appearance.

The hard layer formed by the polymer and monomer serves as protective over the nails. When applied by professionals, acrylic nails can be used to protect natural nails. This is especially helpful for customers with brittle or weak nails.

Acrylic nails also last for up to 21 days, decreasing the number of times customers must return to the nail salon. In the long run, acrylic nails can be a cost-effective way for customers to continue looking their best.

Lastly, acrylic nails provide unmatched customizations for their clients. Customers can choose from a range of lengths, shapes, colours, and designs.

As showcasing creativity via nail designs becomes more popular, customers stay aware of the potential health concerns that surround their beauty regimen.

-Carissa Chua

Nuclear Power: A Solution to the Australian Energy Crisis or a Risky Gamble?

Australia is currently in the midst of an energy crisis. Electricity prices have risen significantly as coal-fired power plants around the country are shutting down, lowering electricity supply in a time where demand is skyrocketing.

As Australia is exploring new ways to generate clean and efficient electricity, one possible, yet controversial alternative have been proposed: nuclear power.

Nuclear power generates electricity by splitting radioactive isotopes, such as uranium-238, in a process called nuclear fission. The heat produced from this process is then used to heat water, which turns into steam and spins turbines to generates electricity.

Nuclear power plant. Source

Proponents of nuclear power argue that nuclear power is a clean and efficient energy source. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generates little to no greenhouse gases. This makes nuclear energy a viable option for combating climate change and can help lower carbon emissions in Australia, allowing the country to meet its emission goals.

Another advantage of nuclear power is its reliability. Nuclear power plants are reliable because they can provide a consistent and reliable source of electricity as nuclear power plants require less maintenance and are designed to operate for long periods before refueling. This is in contrast to renewable energy sources such as wind or solar, which are less reliable as they are dependent on fuel availability (wind and sunlight) and require large-scale storage.

Despite the benefits of nuclear power, there are opponents who raise concerns about its safety. One reason behind this opposition is the potential for accidents. Nuclear meltdowns such as Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi have resulted in radioactive leaks and serious health risks for people living nearby. In fact, the areas surrounding these accidents sites have been left uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.

Damage to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Source.

Another risk associated with nuclear power is the issue of nuclear waste. Nuclear power plants generate radioactive waste that can remain hazardous for thousands of years.

Radioactive waste generated from nuclear power plants poses a risk of environmental contamination, causing harm to people, animals, and the ecosystem. This waste needs to be carefully stored and disposed of to prevent contaminating the environment.

The debate over nuclear power is likely to continue for many years to come. While there are certainly benefits to nuclear power, it is also clear that there are associated risks. As Australia faces the current energy crisis, it should consider nuclear power as a viable option for generating electricity to overcome this crisis.

~ Raymond Tang

Step In The Chamber: The Benefits and Risks of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy

Oxygen is crucial to aerobic respiration, a process in the human body that turns sugars and fats into energy. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) is a medical treatment that provides patients with pure oxygen, rather than the 21% oxygen in the air. Canada currently follows the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, which identified HBOT as an effective treatment for 14 select medical conditions in 2011. These include conditions such as carbon monoxide poisoning and anemia.

During the operation, patients enter a chamber that delivers oxygen at a raised atmospheric pressure. The chamber increases the oxygen concentration in the blood, as well as decreases any air bubbles that are present. HBOT follows the basis that a greater oxygen supply to the bloodstream and tissues will promote an accelerated recovery.

A Patient Undergoing Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Source: Travis AFB

There are some risks associated with HBOT that patients should be aware of. Excess oxygen levels are toxic to humans, creating reactive species that can hurt the body. Additionally, the pressurized chamber can trigger claustrophobia, the fear of confined spaces, in certain patients. The chamber can also lead to cases of barotrauma, where the pressure inside damages a patient’s ears and sinuses.

However, several factors can reduce the risks that accompany HBOT treatment. Health Canada has to evaluate the safety and efficacy of all medical chambers, issuing licenses to the ones qualified for use. Installation of these devices must then follow strict safety protocols. In regards to the patients, it’s important they verify their medical history to ensure they don’t aggravate conditions sensitive to HBOT. They also need to be attentive to instructions, occasionally taking breaks from the continuous oxygen supply.

While HBOT appears to be an effective form of treatment, Health Canada limits its range of use to a few medical conditions. Monitoring whether its benefits outweigh the drawback will determine if the methodology continues moving forward.

The Controversy Behind Neem Oil

Since 2012, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada has banned neem oil for its use as a pesticide, despite many benefits it brings in the agricultural field. Nonetheless, neem oil has been been the subject of intensive synthetic research for its impressive biological activity.

Neem oil is commonly known as a pesticide. (source)

What is neem oil?

Neem oil, or margosa oil, is an extracted vegetable oil from the neem tree’s seeds. The seeds are the richest source containing the naturally occurring pesticide called Azadirachtin.

Structure of Azadirachtin (source)

Benefits of neem oil

Azadirachtin is found to be an effective systemic pesticide and to have growth-disrupting effects against more than 200 insect species.

In an urban settings, neem oil is a great solution to a pest infestation. A bottle of neem oil will come in handy when your garden is infested by either mealybugs, thrips, aphids, fungus gnats, spidermites and more. Neem oil effectively eliminates every stage of the pest’s lifecycle, including eggs, larvae, pupas, and adults.

Mealybugs infestation (source)

Ladybugs, earthworms, and other beneficial insects are generally not affected by neem oil.

One other known benefit of neem oil is boosting the process of wound-healing and skin regeneration. Neem oil is also found to help calm eczema and psoriasis. These health benefits are due to neem oil’s components of fatty acids, limonoid, and vitamin E.

Why banned neem oil?

Despite the proven advantages neem oil has, Health Canada said neem oil has not been certified and registered as a pest control product. The government hasn’t had sufficient evaluation to determine whether neem oil is safe to be used as a pesticide, nor the environmental risk it brings.

There are several case reports of neem oil poisoning in children and elderly caused by neem oil ingestion. These cases report symptoms of nausea, vomiting, seizures, kidney failure, restriction in blood supply to the brain. The long term effect of neem oil is also not clear.

MSG: A Story of how Bad Science Led to a Bad Reputation

Many North Americans believe that MSG causes headache, nausea, drowsiness, obesity and even heart disease.

In a recent poll MSG was found to rank highly among ingredients that American consumers avoid for health reasons.

Data from the International Food Information Council (2018). Figure adapted from (source).

So, what is MSG? and why are people afraid of it?

Crystalline MSG (source).

MSG is short for monosodium glutamate. It is one of the most widely used flavour enhancers. When added to food it provides a delicious umami flavour.

Glutamate is one of the most naturally abundant proteinogenic amino acids. It is naturally found in protein containing food. MSG is simply the sodium salt of glutamate.

MSG was isolated by Japanese biochemist Kikunae Ikeda from seaweed in 1908. Since then, it has been a flavouring additive is common in many foods.

Some are biased to assuming that MSG is only common in Asian cuisines. However, one should note MSG is far more versatile. Added to most bagged potato chips, fast foods, taco seasonings, and soups.

The negative view came from a 1968 study which dubbed MSG the cause of “Chinese restaurant Syndrome”. A condition said to cause headaches, sweat, and abdominal pain.

The name alone is targeting Chinese food without warrant to do so. The use of and naturally occurrence of MSG is far more widespread.
It has been understood more recently that this study and belief carry racist biases against Asian cuisine. As the poor choice of name may suggest this study was not carried out in a scientifically rigorous manner.

The study lacked proper controls, people in the study were aware of what sample they were ingesting and were asked to describe their symptoms.

Studies that have continued in this path of villainizing MSG suffer the similar issues. Poor sample size, doses significantly higher than regular consumption, and biased participants.

But, in blind studies the vast majority of people, even those who claim to be sensitive do not negatively react to MSG. Not one study has found a verified mechanism of MSG causing harm.

But, as mentioned in the poll a 4/10 Americans hold some of these beliefs and avoid MSG.

In spite of science, prejudice can be hard to overcome. If you catch someone saying they avoid MSG, I encourage you to see if they can explain why.

Buccal Fat Removal: Recommended or Regretted?

The public, gossip columnists, and surgeons are voicing various opinions on the newest plastic surgery trend: buccal fat removal.

Buccal fat is located between the jawbones and cheekbones. Cosmetic surgeons remove the fat to contour the face; the surgery hollows the cheeks and sharpens the jawline.

Before (left) and after (right) buccal fat removal. The patient’s cheekbones and jawline are more prominent. (Source: primera1035 on Flickr)

Patients typically have fuller cheeks that negatively impact their self-esteem. A doctor can remove this insecurity in an hour, and a patient recovers in only 7 to 10 days. The surgeon removes the fat with an incision in the inner cheek, so no scar is externally visible.

In 2021, Chrissy Teigen, a well-known model, expressed improved self-confidence after her own surgery.

Some popular procedures, like Botox, require routine touch-ups and payments to the surgeon’s office. In contrast, buccal fat removal is a one-time, permanent change. Supporters see its irreversibility as a positive, but others see it as a significant negative to the procedure.

Think about any older person in your life. As seen daily and shown through scientific studies, the middle of the face naturally loses fat as people age. Buccal fat removal speeds up this aging process. As said by Dr. Sherrell Aston, “you can make a 25-year-old look 45 with a 15-minute procedure”. Again, the process is irreversible, so surgeons cannot plump the cheeks back up with fillers or fat transfers.

Further, as with any surgery, there are associated risks. A study showed that there is a 26.3% chance of injury to facial nerves. Damage to the buccal branch can result in metallic-tasting food and numbness in the face or neck.

Buccal fat surgery can immediately boost a patient’s self-confidence, but the long-term effects must be considered. In the end, it is the individual’s decision, with consultation from a cosmetic surgeon, to alter their face forever.

– Julia Sawitsky

Gun Control: Saving Lives or Infringing on Rights? The Contentious Debate Continues…

Figure 1: A Gun with Box Ammunition Bullets

The contentious issue of gun control has sparked much debate within society. Some contend that gun control is vital for ensuring the safety and protection of individuals. Others argue that it infringes on the fundamental right to live and can actually increase the number of firearm-related deaths. This article aims to explore both perspectives and shed light on the underlying reasoning behind each.

Proponents of gun control argue that it is necessary for reducing the number of gun-related deaths and injuries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were approximately 43,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2020 alone. They argue regulating the availability and ownership of firearms can reduce these numbers. They suggest measures such as background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of firearms. This would ensure only responsible and law-abiding citizens have access to them. They also state that not having gun control violates the most fundamental human right, the right to live!

Opponents of gun control, however, argue that it violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. They view the right to own firearms as a fundamental aspect of individual liberty and personal freedom. Some view the regulation of firearms as a potential threat to individual liberties and fear that it could lead to a loss of autonomy and control over one’s own safety. Carrying a firearm can serve as a means of self-defense, they argue. They suggest that gun control measures will not effectively reduce gun-related deaths and injuries since criminals will still find ways to obtain firearms regardless of regulations.

Figure 2: A Soldier Holding A Gun

Another argument against gun control is that it may be used by the government to oppress and disarm its citizens. This would make it easier for the government to maintain control over the population.On the other hand, advocates of gun control argue that the safety and protection of individuals outweighs the individual right to bear arms. They suggest that by implementing stricter gun control measures, society as a whole can be made safer. They also argue that the Second Amendment was written at a time when firearms were far less dangerous and sophisticated than they are today. Their interpretation should evolve along with modern technology.

In conclusion, the issue of gun control is complex and multifaceted, with valid arguments on both sides. While proponents of gun control argue that it is necessary for the safety and protection of individuals, opponents view it as a violation of human rights. Ultimately, the solution to this issue may lie in finding a middle ground where individuals’ rights are protected, while measures are taken to ensure the safety and security of society as a whole.

Should cigarettes be abolished in Canada?

Smoking tobacco has been prevalent in Canadian communities for a very long time. Indigenous groups in Canada have been known to use tobacco to smoke for thousands of years. Canadians have been smoking cigarettes since the early 19th century. As time has advanced so have our smoking habits. In 2020 the University of Waterloo conducted a smoking prevalence survey where they concluded that 3.2 million Canadians (approximately 10.2% of the entire Canadian population) actively smoke cigarettes. The current trend in cigarette usage has seen a decrease in cigarette usage over the past 20 years. However, despite the decrease, some people feel that cigarettes should be banned altogether.

Common Cigarette

Tobacco use continues to be the leading cause of preventable illness and death in Canada. Over 48,000 Canadians die from tobacco use every year. Smoking legislation has already come a long way since the 19th century. Smokers would argue abolitions is an extremely drastic change however it is important to remember that it was only just over ten years ago that smoking with children in the car was legal. If a smoker was told that they weren’t allowed to smoke in a bar in the early 21st century they most likely would have gone ballistic believing that it is a complete infringement on their rights. Cigarettes are also a major cause of fires in Canada. From 2012-2015 11% of all outdoor fires were deemed to be caused by cigarettes that were improperly disposed of.

Wildfire prevention icon “Smokey the Bear”

In Canada, the cigarette and tobacco economy is one that puts roofs over people’s houses and food in their children’s mouths. There are over 2,300 Canadians working in the cigarette and tobacco manufacturing sector as of 2023. Economics is not the only reason abolition would be the wrong approach. Considering the health of current smokers is extremely important. Out of the 3.2 million Canadians that actively smoke cigarettes 2.6 million of them are daily smokers. If these people can no longer smoke their cigarettes they can experience serious withdrawal symptoms. Feelings of high anxiety, depression, and lack of sleep can severely impact a person’s mental health. Many people believe that being able to buy and consume cigarettes is their human-born right. A right that should not be infringed upon by the government. It does not take a smoker to not want to have freedoms of choice to be limited by the government.

The Fentanyl fire

Fentanyl was responsible for the most deaths by overdose in British Columbia from 2019-2022. It’s not just our homeless population. Young professionals, our youth, and new parents have all been affected; in short, all those who choose to partake can fall victim.

Chemical structure of fentanyl

This is terrifying but hardly surprising when you consider that a dose of only 2milligrams can kill you.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid: a man-made drug with effects similar to that of morphine and heroin. Fentanyl is 50 to a 100 times more potent than morphine and relatively speaking, frighteningly simple to synthesize. It makes sense then that it is used medically as both a pain reliever and sedative. In fact, it is on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines.

It seems almost trite to remark here that fentanyl, like all drugs, has the potential for abuse.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of deaths attributed to a number of drugs between 2019-2022. Fentanyl clearly takes the cake here, and it’s not even close. Figure 1 below graphs the total deaths by illicit drugs per year, from 1996 to 2022. A truly disturbing, upward trend.

Figure 1: Deaths caused by illicit drugs from 1996 to 2022

Figure 2: Percentage of 2648 deaths in which fentayl and other drugs were found postmortem (Source: Government of Canada)

But why? Why are so many people dying? It’s not like people are purchasing fentanyl in droves. Surely they know how dangerous this is?

Fentanyl enters Canada in one of three ways: illegal import, illegal manufacture and theft of medical products.

The truth is, there are individuals who recreationally consume fentanyl. They have their methods; such as through transdermal fentanyl patches, lollipops or nasal sprays. These are all relatively safer options, all things considered, as they are all illegally sourced medical products going under brand names such as Actiq®, Duragesic®, and Sublimaze®.

Actiq, a popular orally bio available method of consumption.

These delivery methods first gained popularity in the 90’s, and soon after that, criminal organizations began making fentanyl analogues to avoid identification as an illegal substance. Even more potent than regular old fentanyl, analogues such as carfentanil and 3-methylfentanyl fueled the fire.

Most people are exposed unwittingly. The first illicit pills and laced drugs containing fentanyl and its analogues appeared in the market around 2013, and drug related deaths began to skyrocket at the same time (Figure 1) and a majority of these deaths are attributable to fentanyl (Figure 2).

But what can we do? While fentanyl test strips are certainly progress, there are limitations; false negatives, false positives, and the simple reality that most people probably won’t be bothered. We must first and foremost draw light to how pervasive and serious this problem really is. This should also be dealt with at the root. We must push for working with other countries including China, the US and Mexico to implement stricter drug measures and export regulations.

Drugs aren’t evil. They are neither good or bad, how could they be? But some drugs are worse than others. Much, much worse. We are left with a fire that we must put out while we still can. The good news is we have ways to deal with this. We have science and people who care.

Environmental Hazard to Reusable Material: Converting Plastics and CO2 into Fuel

Plastic waste management has become a serious issue over the last few decades. In 2019, the total amount of plastic produced since 1950 totaled just over 9.5 billion tons, and plastic production hasn’t slowed down, as 400 million tons were added to that in 2020.

The chemical bonds that make up plastics are hard to break and do not degrade in the environment quickly. This makes plastic waste challenging to deal with, leading to a large amount of plastic being discarded or incinerated.

While people have been recycling since the late 1980s, only about 6% of annual waste is recycled, and only a further 20% of that stays recycled. Current recycling methods consist of mechanical recycling, a process by which the plastic is ground or melted down into a new product, or chemical recycling, a process by which chemical additives break down the plastic into more manageable pieces to be used as raw material. However, both methods are not environmentally friendly or cheap, leading to a high volume of plastics that are not recycled (see below).

The final fate of plastics over 65 years. only 1.72% of plastics remain recycled.

Finding new ways to deal with plastic waste is a heavy focus for environmental scientists, leading to catalysis, electrochemistry, and photochemistry developments. One such method, developed by Dr. Resier and his team at the University of Cambridge, has found a way to deal with this waste in an environmentally clean way. Using a perovskite (PVK) based photocathode and a copper-palladium alloy anode in combination with a CO2 reduction catalyst, they transformed PET plastics and CO2 into a variety of useable fuels and by-products, such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen gas, and glycolic acid.

Electrochemical pathway of CO2 reduction into CO and byproducts.

The photoelectrochemical system works upon sunlight exposure under zero applied voltage and generates products 10-100 times faster than other catalytic methods. Further, the catalyst system is not sensitive to the introduction of bio-organic molecules; in fact, the presence of small amounts of food products could increase the activity of the system.

However, this process is anything but cheap. The copper-palladium alloy anode is not cheap to fabricate, and the materials required are rare, palladium being over 15 times rarer than platinum. This increases startup costs, which is not favorable to most companies who could instead dump the waste.

While advancements in this technology are still needed, there is a positive outlook for the future of plastics and environmental contaminants. We may yet be able to save our fragile, yet vital planet from our own advancement.

Tristan Ruigrok