Series, part 2: Chemical background and pioneering patents [continued]
By Markus Weber, Ph.D., and Guido Deussing
90 years ago, on 27. October 1928, Röhm & Haas AG, Darmstadt, received a patent for an innovative new plastic with the awkward name polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). German Imperial Patent (DRP) 656642 was the result of sixteen years of research in the acrylate chemistry field. Röhm & Haas, a medium-sized company with about 250 employees in 1918 (Ackermann 1967, 16 and 122), had won the race against such flagships of the chemical industry as BASF in Germany or Imperial Chemical Industries in Great Britain, but soon decided to try and co-operate with its rivals – on a contractual basis and for their mutual benefit. After the plastic patent had been granted, it still took a few more years of development work before PMMA began to cause a stir under the trade name “Plexiglas” (“Acrylic”). As a result, the annual sales of Röhm & Haas AG grew rapidly, from 466,000 Reichsmarks in 1934 to more than 23 million Reichsmarks in 1940 (Ackermann 1967, 84). Credit for this is due not only to the company founder Dr Otto Röhm (1876-1839), who obtained his doctorate at Tübingen University in 1901 with a thesis about acrylic acid polymerisation products, but also to the research chemists recruited by Röhm, above all Dr Walter Hermann Bauer (1893-1968). After the end of the First World War, Bauer had brought new ideas and fresh energy to the acrylic research operations at Röhm & Haas and made the decisive advances – initially in the synthesis of the monomers C4H6O2(acrylic acid methyl ester or methyl acrylate) and C5H8O2(methacrylic acid methyl ester or methyl methacrylate) and then in their polymerisation into marketable products in the form of safety glass and acrylic glass panelling. In part 2 of the short series about Acrylic, k-onlineoutlines this complicated and difficult process.
Acrylic glass is a polymer of methacrylic acid methyl ester (C5H8O2). Although this textbook statement sounds banal, the process that chemists had to carry out to develop a marketable product that received the trade name “Plexiglas” in Germany in December 1933 was exacting and convoluted.
The company Röhm & Haas started the first laboratory tests for the purposes of plastics research as early as 1912 (Wittig 2007, 14). The initial aim was to synthesise acrylic acid methyl ester (C4H6O2) as the liquid, monomer counterpart to the solid, elastic polymers (polyacrylates) with which Otto Röhm had been familiarised by his doctoral advisor Hans Freiherr von Pechmann (1850-1902) and which now needed more intensive research. The acrylic acid (C3H4O2) needed as the raw material for this purpose had to be produced specially in the laboratory, because it could not be bought (Wittig 2007, 15) and was not available simply as a waste product, e.g. in coal tar manufacturing. It was, however, definite that coal chemistry was the place to start. This is because the acrylic acid molecule involves the combination of a carboxyl group (-COOH) with a hydrocarbon chain that has unsaturated double bonds (C=C). Synthesisation of acrylic acid therefore had to be approached gradually via other hydrocarbons that acted as preliminary and intermediate products:
“All the research was based on the fact that the acrylic acid molecule consists of three carbon atoms (C atoms) […]. The question for Röhm was how acrylic acid could be obtained best from existing substances. Two approaches seemed to him to be convincing: one either started with molecules that have two C atoms, to which a further C atom from a different substance group needed to be added via chemical reations. Or one looked for molecules that already had three C atoms but were combined with the wrong substance groups. The task was then to ‘convert’ them into the right substance’.” (Wittig 2007, 26)
On 21. June 1912, Röhm outlined by hand a number of proposals about how to synthesise acrylic acid ester, such as: “from: lactic salt + met. Na or Na alkoxide or Na amalgam or amalgam of a different metal e.g. zinc amalgam” (Wittig 2007, 15). In 1915, he made a list of more than twenty different synthesis approaches and submitted it to his chemists as a programme (Edschmid 1957, 51). By 1918, six chemists – who were, however, hampered in their efforts by the war – had finally investigated the following synthesis approaches in succession without achieving a breakthrough: Dr Andres / the lactic acid approach, Dr (Julius, editor’s note) Kohl / the propionic acid approach, Dr Göller / the acrolein approach, Dr Schwarzkopf, Messrs Dehn and M. (sic) / the acetylene, ethylene and malonic acid approach (Ackermann 1967, 14).
Recommendation for a new recruit from Jena
In order to make progress in the plastics research programme, Otto Röhm recruited a new chemist on 4. March 1918 as the successor to Dr Schwarzkopf: Dr Walter Bauer (1893-1968) (Ackermann 1967, 16). Ludwig Wolff (1857-1919), Associate Professor of Analytical Chemistry at Jena University, had advised the company to try Bauer in response to its inquiry of 12. February 1918 (Ackermann 1967, 14). Bauer came from a family of merchants and craftsmen based in Arnstadt/Thuringia. He started to study mathematics, chemistry and physics at Jena University in 1911 and then made chemistry his main subject at Munich University (Ackermann 1967, 238). He was very influenced there by the chemistry professors Adolf von Baeyer (1835-1917), Oskar Piloty (1866-1915) and Ludwig Vanino (1861-1944) (Ackermann 1967, 73). After he graduated in Munich in 1917, the 24-year-old Bauer obtained a doctorate in natural sciences “magna cum laude” the same year in Jena on a Liebig grant (Ackermann 1967, 238 and Wittig 2006).
At Röhm & Haas in Darmstadt, Bauer was “the only chemist deployed to carry out research in the acrylic field after he joined the company […]. No assistants were available” (Ackermann 1967, 16). “Otto Röhm compiled a work schedule for him, ‘in which it should be taken into consideration that carbon compounds can be produced by the most improbable removals and additions of atoms or groups of atoms’. The assignment in this context was to make systematic records of as many as possible of the reaction paths that did not seem to be plausible at first.” (Wittig 2007, 26) “Since compounds with two C atoms were easier to obtain on the market than compounds with three C atoms, Walter Bauer initially wanted to structure acrylic acid molecules by trying to add a third C atom to his basic molecules. Once he had failed to carry out any convincing acrylic acid synthesis in this way, he decided to use basic compounds with three C atoms, like propionic and malonic acid as his next step […].” (Wittig 2007, 27)
Bauer, on the other hand, reported that his focus on propionic acid was not a choice of his own but was rather attributable to the legacy he inherited and was required to work his way through:
“By way of instruction, Bauer was given three pages of handwritten rules about the production of acrylic acid methyl ester from propionic acid. […] An analysis of the acrylic acid ester made by his predecessor – which was supposed to be pure – revealed that the ester content was 80%. The rest consisted essentially of alcohol. No-one had noticed this error before. The propionic acid approach proved to be uneconomic and impractical. […] The lack of viable previous work forced Dr Bauer to start entirely from scratch. He began by writing down some 100 syntheses for acrylic acid methyl ester.” (Ackermann 1967, 16)
Trommsdorff 1976, 203 explains in this context: “In 1918, he worked on the propionic acid approach and then the malonic acid approach. In January 1919 he moved on the acetone approach […] and, subsequently, the ‘ethylene approach’.” The latter proved, finally, to be the ideal solution – synthesis of monomer acrylic acid methyl ester was achieved “on the basis of ethylene […] via ethylene cyanohydrin”. (Wittig 2007, 27)
A description of ethylene
Ethylene, which is known better nowadays as ethene, is a gaseous, highly flammable hydrocarbon (C2H4). It was originally obtained from fermentation spirit (basis: biomass) or carbide spirit (basis: limestone and coal) by removing water from the alcohol catalytically (Nagel 1971, 7 and Hölscher 1972, 15). The dye industry was first to make use of ethylene for the production of synthetic indigo, but gave this approach up again (Nagel 1971, 8). It was discovered very soon “that ethylene […] is suitable for numerous plastics” (Mark 1970, 63), since it is an unsaturated hydrocarbon that tends to polymerise. It is a well-known fact that the number of carbon-carbon bonds determines whether a molecule can form a polymer chain or not. “In hydrocarbons, the carbon atoms can link with each other by multiple bonding, with a reduction in the number of hydrogen atoms […]. The ethylene molecule has two bonds between the carbon atoms. One of them is easy to ‘break’, so that the molecule can be added to a chain.” (Mark 1970, 63) Incidentally, ethylene has been obtained primarily from crude oil or heavy naphtha (Mark 1970, 134) or natural gas or methane (Hölscher 1972, 15) instead of from coal tar since the middle of the 20thcentury.
Back to the pioneering years at Röhm & Haas, however, when the ethylene approach was tackled for the first time. Looking back, Bauer prided himself on his own intuition and the “courage to break with established tradition”; he “relied on his instinct to choose from the approximately one hundred possible syntheses for acrylic ester production a synthesis approach that proved successful immediately and has been exploited technically for decades” (Ackermann 1967, 115). Although Bauer could not claim to be the first to adopt the ethylene approach, everyone who had tried it beforehand had failed: “Dr Julius Kohl, who joined (Röhm & Haas, editor’s note) in January 1913, wrote a reaction plan for ethylene that went from ethylene cyanohydrin to acrylic acid ester […]. It was described in the laboratory files as the ‘ethylene approach’. The first stage went from ethylene […] to ethylene bromohydrin. This was possible in the laboratory without any difficulty.” (Trommsdorff 1976, 201) However, since the next stage, the “conversion of the halohydrin into cyanohydrin using alkali cyanide, which – according to the literature – was carried out in an alcoholic solution – […], only produced a yield of 29%”, the ethylene approach was in general abandoned (Trommsdorff 1976, 201). “The work […] was discontinued for 4 years” (Trommsdorff 1976, 203), until Bauer came on the scene: “After studying these records (made by Kohl, editor’s note) thoroughly, Walter Bauer succeeded in solving the yield problem, as a result of which this synthesis approach became viable.” (Wittig 2007, 27).
The seven-stage ethylene approach
Anyone who would like to understand in greater detail what Bauer’s achievement consisted of, has to go through the seven-stage ethylene approach (Wittig 2007, 27) intermediate product by intermediate product, until acrylic acid ester is reached. The article “From my life as a research scientist and inventor” that Bauer wrote in 1963 for the annual periodical published by the Deutscher Erfinder-Verband (“Creative achievement”) and was reprinted in Ackermann 1967, 237-243) makes this possible:
Stage 1: acetylene – ethylene bromide
Trommsdorff 1976, 203 explains: “Since ethylene was difficult to obtain at the time, acetylene (see box, editor’s note), which provided symmetrical ethylene bromide in light or in the presence of oxygen when combined with hydrogen bromide”, was used. Bauer himself reports: “In view of our raw material situation at the time, I chose acetylene as the source material, which is an unsaturated hydrocarbon that can, among other things, add two molecules of hydrogen bromide. This was done […] in such a way that both the bromine atoms engaged one and the same carbon atom and formed an asymmetrical reaction product according to Markovnikov’s rule. In order to synthesise acrylic ester, symmetrical addition of the hydrogen bromide was necessary, however. On the basis of what was known at this time, it therefore inevitably appeared to be pointless to start synthesis by this route. Common sense suggested that it was not worth trying. The inventor was, however, inspired by a bout of revolutionary optimism to check experimentally the accuracy of the results that had been produced regularly in the past. The outcome was that the reaction can be carried out with the required symmetrical results – contrary to Markovnikov’s rule – if certain catalysts like light and oxygen are present. This has been called the ‘peroxide effect’ in subsequent chemical literature.” (Ackermann 1967, 240)
Röhm & Haas AG had the production of ethylene bromide from acetylene patented (Ackermann 1967, 25); Bauer is named as the inventor both times in the patents DRP 368467 of 24. July 1919 (“Process for manufacturing hydrogen halide addition products from acetylene”) and DRP 394194 of 10. May 1921 (“Process for the synthesis of ethylene dibromide”).
“The glycol obtained subsequently in the synthesis process (by saponification/hydrolysis of the ethylene bromide, editor’s note) was converted into glycol chlorohydrin (C2H5OCl, editor’s note) with hydrogen chloride. The very aggressive hydrogen chloride, which formed hydrochloric acid in the presence of moisture – something that was feared because of its corrosive effect on equipment – was produced in quartz equipment at the time […]. Disregarding all prejudices, metal burners and metal chambers were used, which produced excellent results under the conditions experienced here” (Ackermann 1967, 240; see also Trommsdorff 1976, 203).
“Kohl failed with the next stage […], the production of ethylene halohydrin with alkali cyanide, because he only achieved a yield of 29% in alcohol. Bauer succeeded in carrying out the reaction in water with a high yield.” (Trommsdorff 1976, 203-204) Bauer himself wrote: “Ethylene cyanohydrin, which is sensitive to water as a nitrile, is produced in the next reaction stage […]. The chemist avoided the presence of water in the production of such substances. However, the reaction also goes very unsatisfactorily when it is carried out at high pressure and temperature. Excellent yield levels were already obtained here easily at room temperature, when glycol chlorohydrin and an aqueous (sic!) sodium cyanide solution were combined to react together […]. This was another example of the problems posed by established thinking. And experiments are regularly the way to produce accurate information.” (Ackermann 1967, 240)
“Starting with ethylene cyanohydrin, three more reaction stages (with the processes saponification, dehydration and esterification) would have been necessary in order, finally, to obtain acrylic ester. Production of the acrylic acid that is obtained in the penultimate stage was difficult because of its easy polymerisability […]. This was the most problematic stage in the entire synthesis procedure due to the yield losses that were to be expected because of premature polymerisation. This difficulty was overcome by carrying out the three reaction stages at the same time in a ‘one-pot process’ – for the first time in chemistry history.” (Ackermann 1967, 240) This one-pot process, as it is known, was described in 1918 and involves the “single-stage conversion of the nitrile group (= ethylene cyanohydrin, editor’s note) into the ester group with sulphuric acid and alcohol” (Trommsdorff 1976, 204): “The transformation of ethylene cyanohydrin to acrylic ester involves 3 reactions, i.e. conversion of the nitrile group into the carboxyl group, esterification of the carboxyl group with alcohol and formation of the double bond via dehydration.” (ibid.) Conversion of ethylene cyanohydrin with the help of sulphuric acid and alcohol (methanol) produces acrylic acid methyl ester directly, i.e. only one single stage is needed instead of three. Bauer stresses: “Professor (Eduard, editor’s note) Vongerichten (1852-1930, editor’s note) from Jena University emphasised to the young doctor (= Walter Bauer, editor’s note) during his farewell visit to the university that it was essential for every intermediate reaction product to be manufactured as purely as possible when making organic products, because this was the only way to obtain excellent final yields. And as many as three stages were now being manufactured in a single operation without making the intermediate products individually, with the obtainment of a yield amounting to 85% of the theoretical maximum even so. Doubts about the accuracy of existing thinking prove as a result to be justified again and again. Research scientists frequently need to act in a way that appears irrational.” (Ackermann 1967, 240)
Incidentally: Röhm & Haas only filed a patent application for the “one-pot process” ten years later “for secrecy reasons” (Wittig 2007, 27) (DRP 571123 of 19. June 1928: “Process for the transformation of β-oxynitriles or their derivatives into unsaturated esters”); Bauer was named as the inventor.
Trommsdorff 1976, 204 pays tribute to Bauer’s “smooth preparative synthesis” of acrylic acid ester using the ethylene approach as efficient enough “to produce the monomer quantities required for development work during the initial phase”; this approach to synthesis was “not”, however, “economic yet because of its multi-stage process (see also Wittig 2007, 27). This was to change gradually: Bauer himself made “numerous simplifications, including the switch to acetone (C2H2) as the basic material instead of acetylene, as early as 1920” (Wittig 2007, 27).
In 1922, Röhm & Haas AG combined its experimental operations, which were still small, in what was called the organic synthetic department (OSA) (Wittig 2007, 27). But although the internal acrylate research was focussed specifically on the development of plastics, it took a while before they materialised: the company had limited personnel and financial resources, while economic slumps in the 1920s also had a debilitating impact. In addition to this, the money-maker – “Oropon”, the leather tanning product developed by Otto Röhm – started to falter: its price dropped 50 per cent between 1925 and 1933 (Wittig 2007, 33). This was due to the Great Depression in 1929 and increasing competitive pressure after patent protection expired in 1930. The first marketable products were not therefore polymers but by-products of acrylic ester synthesis; fire extinguishers were, for example, filled with ethylene bromide (Wittig 2007, 29). From 1927 onwards, Röhm & Haas was, on the other hand, able to obtain “a direct upstream product of the key substance ethylene cyanohydrin” from I.G. Farbenindustrie, so that expensive in-house production was no longer needed to some extent (Wittig 2007, 29). “Once ethylene oxide and prussic acid had become technical products, it was possible to obtain ethylene cyanohydrin in a single step […], which was then only followed by the one-pot process. Production of acrylic ester from ethylene cyanohydrin remained the only manufacturing process used technically anywhere in the world for many years.” (Trommsdorff, 204-205)
The road to safety glass
But what did the company do with its laboriously synthesised monomer, acrylic acid ethyl ester, to polymerise it? And what was to be done with the polymers, the polyacrylates? “Insulation (agents, editor’s note) for the electrical industry were the first application to be considered for the comparatively flexible plastics. A mature polymerisation process was not yet needed for this purpose. On the contrary: the OSA chemists used residue from uncontrolled polymerisation” (Wittig 2007, 29). Further applications were coatings or finishing agents for the textile industry, lacquers or bonding agents for the dye industry and acrylic adhesives (Wittig 2007, 29, 30 and 32). The first major success was attributable to a coincidence:
“In order obtain panels from the residues (of uncontrolled polymerisation, editor’s note), the chemist Dr Adolf Gerlach pressed them between two panes of glass under the influence of heat and wrote afterwards: ‘I discovered in this context that the panes of glass could not be separated any more after cooling and adhered firmly to the polyacrylic layer. Even when they were smashed, the splinters could not be separated from the polymer any more. Although the glass broke when attempts were made to hammer a nail through the panes, shards did not come off. An innovative new kind of laminate glass had been created, that did not turn yellow as it aged, in contrast to the celluloid available until then. OSA had its first plastic product.” (Wittig 2007, 29; see also Trommsdorff 1976, 214-215 and Hölscher 1972, 69)
It was entered in the trademark register with the name “Luglas” on 26. October 1929. Gerlach shared the relevant patent with his laboratory manager Bauer (DRP 676672 of 5. April 1932: “Process for the production of safety glass”). One of the paragraphs of the patent was as follows:
“The safety glass can be produced by standard methods, e.g. in such a way that finished polymer films are applied to or between the panes of glass and are bonded firmly to them, for instance by applying pressure and heat. Polymerisation of the monomer compounds or further polymerisation of pre-polymerised products can be carried out on or between the panes of glass too. In this context, the monomer or pre-polymerised products can be applied to or between the panes of glass with or without additives, if necessary in solutions or solution mixtures as well. Finished polymers can also be applied to the panes in solution and the solvent can be eliminated by evaporation. Layers that guarantee better shatterproof properties and demonstrate higher bond strength levels can be obtained by including solvents and by removing the solvent to a to all intents and purposes comprehensive extent.”
Gerlach and Bauer had acted as joint inventors for the first time before this, in 1928; the DRP 655570 in question (“Process for manufacturing conversion products of acrylic acid or its derivatives”) did not, however, yet involve safety glass. What it involved instead was the production of lacquers and adhesives – by means of polymerisation of the acrylic acid and/or its esters by using agents that release oxygen, solvents and thinners and by applying pressure and heat. Further safety glass patents held by Röhm & Haas are in Bauer’s name alone (DRP 674712 of 30. December 1934 “Laminated glass” and DRP 708842 of 5. April 1932 “Safety glass”) as well as in the names of Bauer and Dr Paul Weisert (DRP 716323 of 19. February 1939: “Process for the production of multilayer safety glass”).
The initial application areas for Luglas were safety goggles and gas masks. “In August 1929, Röhm writes about this to Haas: ‘that the production of splinterproof special glass has been possible now to an extent of 10,000 glasses per month’.” (Trommsdorff 1976, 215) “The production of car windscreens became very significant, because the number of severe cut injuries sustained in car accidents was reduced with LUGLAS.” (Wittig 2007, 29-30) “The first deliveries probably went to Auto-Union” (Trommsdorff 1976, 216), although there were customers in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Sweden too. However, “the plastics operations continued to make a loss at the purely economic level. The revenues from the sale of […] LUGLAS were minimal, so that Otto Haas invested some 100,000 Reichsmarks in the plastic research operations in 1930.” (Wittig 2007, 32-33) “In 1933, a licensing agreement was concluded with ‘Sicherheitsglas GmbH in Kunzendorf (in Lower Lusatia, now known as Kunice/Poland, editor’s note), which satisfied Röhm’s desire for expansion of the business. This company was supplied with polymer solutions and films and sold its multilayer glass for road vehicles and aircraft under the name ‘Sigla’.” (Trommsdorff 1976, 216)
Polymerisation in solvents started in 1928 (Wittig 2007, 31), although “the organic synthetic department was still carrying out basic research about polymerisation. The actual chemical process during polymerisation was unknown.” (Wittig 2007, 30) Polymerisation of thinned monomers was chosen as the focus primarily for safety reasons, because the chain reaction of the esters used was quite often – literally – explosive. I.G. Farbenindustrie then unexpectedly received the patent for what is known as emulsion polymerisation (“Process for manufacturing polymerisation products”, DRP 654989 of 18. February 1930):
“It has been determined that polymerisation of acrylic acid derivatives and their homologues can be carried out advantageously in such a way that the above-mentioned substances are emulsified and then polymerised in water, either alone or in blends […]; the quantity of polymerised components exceeds the quantity of the non-polymerisable components substantially. In this context, latex-like liquids are generally obtained, which produce high-quality polymers of high purity on coagulation and are easy to remove from the reaction vessels.” […] The acrylic acid derivatives are surprisingly resistant to the saponification impact of the water.”
Dr Hans Fikentscher (1896-1983) from I.G. Ludwigshafen (Badische Anilin- und Sodafabrik AG, BASF) and Dr Claus Heuck (1900-1991) from I.G. Leverkusen (Farbenfabriken, formerly Friedrich Bayer & Co. AG) were registered as the inventors. Fikentscher had started to investigate acrylic acid and its compounds in 1929. His research focussed not on the production of organic glass but on artificial silk (Hölscher 1972, 69). The first artificial silk products were produced at the I.G. laboratory in Ludwigshafen in 1930 from copolymers of acrylic acid nitrile and/or vinylidene chloride (Hölscher 1972, 123). The approach used in synthesis was as follows: “Acrylonitrile was produced from ethylene cyanohydrin, which the indigo and, later, inorganic department manufactured by processing ethylene oxide with prussic acid, via catalytic dehydration, while the free acrylic acid was formed by saponification or its esters were obtained via simultaneous processing with alcohol.” (Nagel 1971, 17; see also Hölscher 1972, 125) “Peroxides acted as catalysts for polymerisation” (Hölscher 1972, 70).
Acrylic contract with I.G. Farben
Since emulsion polymerisation “was essential for most of the acrylate products, Röhm & Haas had to reach agreement with I.G. Farbenindustrie” (Wittig 2007, 32). In 1932, what was known as the acrylic agreement was therefore concluded in 1932. This was an “amicable arrangement” with the aim of “specifying each side’s areas of interest” (Hölscher 1972, 69) and contained essentially the following agreements:
The I.G. Farben management granted Röhm & Haas the right, to share use of the I.G. emulsion patent.
I.G. Farben took over all the monomer production, including the one-pot process, in return for the payment of royalties (Hölscher 1972, 74), as well as parts of the polyacrylate production on the basis of the Röhm & Haas patents. The only product excluded from this arrangement was Luglas (Wittig 2007, 32).
The acrylic agreement with I.G. Farben gave the application research about polyacrylates at Röhm & Haas further momentum: “Polyacrylic acid esters […] are used in the lacquer industry as well as for adhesives. Emulsions of polyacrylic acid esters, produced by emulsion polymerisation of monomer esters, are used in the artificial leather and leather industry for the production of outside surface layers […]. They are also manufactured as granular powder […] and are used mainly to produce cable sheathing by the injection moulding process.” (Meyer and Mark 1950, 238; see also Trommsdorff 1976, 220-221) An exceptionally heterogeneous product range, for which solely the brand name “Plexigum” was used, which led to considerable confusion among staff and customers” (Wittig 2007, 31)
Plexigum was „the first Röhm & Haas brand for purely plastic resins and solutions” (Wittig 2007, 31) and was entered in the brand register on 25. June 1927, i.e. a good two years earlier than Luglas. The prefix “Plexi-“ did, however, already have label character before Plexiglas even existed. The origin of the word is unknown. There is an anecdote, according to which Otto Röhm was so perplexed by the rubbery stretchability of the first acrylate films that he came up with the word “Plexigum” for them as a modified form of “Gummiplex” (Wittig 2007, 31). Etymologists, in turn, attribute “Plexi-“ to the Latin word “plectere” (in English: “braid”, “twine”, hold together”). (To be continued!)
Acetylene: a brief summary
Acetylene, which is also known as ethyne, is a colourless gas with the molecular formula C2H2and is therefore the simplest of the homologous series of acetylene hydrocarbons (alkynes). A characteristic feature of these is that they have at least one triple carbon bond (R–C≡C–R) in the molecule. Due to this triple bond between two carbon atoms, acetylene is, on the one hand, the most explosive hydrocarbon, while it is, on the other hand, “very valuable as a component of acrylic fibres and synthetic rubber” (Mark 1970, 62).
Acetylene was synthesised for the first time in 1836 by the Irish chemist Edmund Davy (1785-1857). It was obtained initially from calcium carbide (Trommsdorff 1976, 206), i.e. from coal and limestone, and later from crude oil or natural gas and/or methane (Hölscher 1972, 15) and oxygen, involving dehydrogenation (Nagel 1971, 35 and 64). For decades, into the 20thcentury, the only use that was found for it was to burn it, to use it either as lighting gas or as welding gas (flame temperature together with oxygen: > 3,000 degrees). Until it was discovered that it could be polymerised and was a suitable – and inexpensibly manufactured – basic material for plastics and synthetic fibres.
Acetylene was processed into, for example, carboxylic acids like acetic acid (Nagel 1971, 37) or acrylic acid. The acrylic acid of relevance for poly(meth)acrylate was manufactured from acetylene, carbon monoxide and water (Hölscher 1972, 17); “if alcohols were used instead of water, then good quantities of the appropriate esters already formed under very mild reaction conditions” (Nagel 1971, 58). This process, a carbonylation reaction (Nagel 1971, 58), is called Reppe synthesis, which is named after Dr Walter Reppe (1892-1969), the longstanding head of the BASF research operations, who focussed on acetylene chemistry from 1928 onwards (Nagel 1971, 38-39). “Due to wartime and post-war events, this work did not lead to the technical production of ‘direct acrylic acid ester’ (ethyl and n-butyl acrylate) in quantities of several hundred tonnes a month until the end of 1952. Economic considerations made it seem necessary to abandon the old cyanohydrin process and the process for manufacturing acrylic acid esters from acrylonitrile, which had been used in the meantime, completely towards the mid-1950s.” (Hölscher 1972, 74)
Katharina Ackermann (Ed.): Dr Walter H. Bauer and his 67 German Imperial Patents. Achievements and experiences of a German research chemist, compiled on the basis of documents. Jugenheim/Bergstrasse: published by the editor in 1967, 264 pages
Friedrich Hölscher: Rubber, plastics, fibres. Six decades of the technical production of synthetic polymers. Munich: Kastner & Callwey 1972 (= series published by the corporate archives of Badische Anilin- und Soda-Fabrik AG, 10), 145 pages
Herman F. Mark: Giant molecules. Weert: Time Life 1970 (= Life – Wunder der Wissenschaft), 200 pages
Kurt H. Meyer and H[ermann] Mark: Macromolecular chemistry. A theoretical and practical manual for chemists and biologists. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft 1950, 2ndedition, 1,023 pages
Alfred von Nagel: Ethylene, acetylene. Munich: Kastner & Callwey 1971 (= series published by the corporate archives of Badische Anilin- und Soda-Fabrik AG, 7), 74 pages
Otto Röhm: About acrylic acid polymerisation products. Diss. Tübingen 1901, 33 pages
Ernst Trommsdorff: Dr Otto Röhm. Chemist and entrepreneur. Düsseldorf and Vienna: Econ 1976, 294 pages
Eva Wittig: Bauer, Walter. Chemist. In: Roland Dotzert (publisher): Stadtlexikon Darmstadt. Stuttgart: Theiss 2006, 1,078 pages; online: https://www.darmstadt-stadtlexikon.de/b/bauer-walter.html
Eva Wittig: Shaping the future for 100 years. Röhm GmbH from 1907 to 2007. Munich: Peschke 2007, 112 pages
Walter Bauer: From my life as a research scientist and inventor. In: Deutscher Erfinder-Verband (publisher): Creative achievement. Issue published on the occasion of the 8thaward of the Diesel Medal in the Great Hall at the Nuremberg Meistersingerhalle, Luitpoldhain, on 10. November 1963. Nuremberg: Keller & Römer 1963, pages 20-26 [reprinted in: Ackermann, pages 237-243]
Kasimir Edschmid: In memoriam Otto Röhm. On the 50thanniversary of the establishment of Chemische Fabrik Röhm & Haas Darmstadt. Darmstadt: Carl Winter 1957, 75 pages