Editorial pubs.acs.org/OPRD
Cost-Effective, Efficient, Scalable, and Safe
■
T
he above four words in my title are probably the most overused words in the titles of manuscripts being submitted to Organic Process Research and Development (OPRD). That may be understandable because, as process chemists and engineers, we would want to develop production processes that are cost-effective, efficient, scalable, and safe, but what are the measures we use to define these terms? In many ways I am against the current management trend in measuring everything in research and development; “measuring the unmeasurable” has often been my scathing comment in meetings! We can, however, try to put some numbers to these terms or at least compare two different processes to see which is best in terms of efficiency, cost, and safety. Scalability is perhaps more nebulous, since it is the judgment of the author as to whether the process can be scaled if there is no evidence that larger-scale work (for OPRD this usually means kilogram scale, but for other journal this may be grams) has been performed. In some ways all processes can be scaled up if the correct safety precautions are carried out (e.g., diazomethane). Whether one would choose to do so is another matter, since the costs associated with assuring safety may mean the process is prohibitively expensive. Consequently, authors of papers ought to think carefully about using these terms and study the meaning of, for example, cost-effectiveness; usually the author is comparing a new process to an existing one, but most times no cost data are given. The assumption is that a better yield leads to improved cost, but if the process changes lead to other adverse factors (poorer space-time-yield, increased effluent, etc.), then this statement may not be true. Efficient can be an even more misunderstood term; my measures of efficiency would include both stoichiometry and yield (efficient use of reagents) and space-time-yield (efficient use of equipment), but may also include green chemistry metrics. Unfortunately, not many authors evaluate all these numbers in the manuscript when the title says “efficient”. So how do they know the process is what it says in the title? Safety is also a term that may have more than one meaning; for process chemists and engineers, the emphasis is on thermal hazards associated with scale up as well as the toxicity of reagents and substrates and their handling precautions. So, does a title which describes a safe process include both an assessment of toxic hazards as well as exothermic potential? Rarely, in my experience. My message to authors is this: Choose the words in the titles of manuscripts with great care and make sure you have the data to back up statements regarding cost-effectiveness, efficiency, safety, and scalability. Or more succinctly If in doubt, leave ‘em out.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
Trevor Laird, Editor
Published: May 27, 2014 © 2014 American Chemical Society
669
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op500163h | Org. Process Res. Dev. 2014, 18, 669−669
