Animal dung, often regarded as mere agricultural waste, contains a wealth of organic compounds that can be processed to extract valuable industrial chemicals such as methane, ammonia, and phosphates. Through various biochemical and thermal treatments—like anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis—these waste materials can be transformed into biofuels, fertilizers, and basic chemical feedstocks for industrial manufacturing. This not only removes the issue for farmers of what to do with the tons of waste their livestock produces but also offers a sustainable source of raw materials for chemical companies and helps place the chemical industry inside the circular economy.

However, despite its environmental promise, the extraction of industrial chemicals from faeces, such as pig or cow manure, is not currently economically viable on a large scale. This is because the processes involved are energy-intensive, slow, and yield relatively low quantities of usable compounds compared to traditional raw material sources. Furthermore, the costs of collection, processing, and waste management often outweigh the profits from the chemicals produced. To make this approach practical and scalable, a more efficient method of extraction is essential—one that minimizes energy input while maximizing output and remains cost-effective for widespread industrial adoption.

This has now been achieved thanks to a team of chemical engineers and animal biologists from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign that have created a scalable, low-energy process to extract valuable industrial chemicals from animal faeces. This discovery represents a significant step towards chemical industry sustainability and circularity.

“It’s incredible that we’re able to obtain industrial chemicals like VFAs [volatile fatty acids] from something like manure,” says Prof. Xiao Su, the study’s corresponding author. “Through our work, we believe that we are closer to circularity, where the waste is reprocessed into valuable resources, making chemical production more efficient and sustainable as a whole.”

Related articles: 4 Ways that AI is Powering a More Sustainable Chemical Industry or When the Petrochemical Sector’s Green Dream Meets Harsh Reality

According to a report in the journal Innovations the breakthrough is based on, “… the incorporation of selective ion-exchange membranes into an electrochemical separation system, the system is 80% more energy efficient than previous standard electrochemical processes.”

VFAs, which include acetate, butyrate, and propionate, are chemical building blocks that are utilised in a variety of goods, such as plastics, food additives, cosmetics, and medications. Microbial anaerobic digestion, in which microorganisms break down biowaste, has lately emerged as a more energy-efficient alternative to the carbon-intensive processing of petrochemical feedstocks that is commonly required for their manufacturing. However, their widespread use has been limited as currently there is no effective technique for removing VFAs from the resulting chemically complicated broths.

The study has now been published in the journal Advanced Functional Materials, which describes how the new approach in detail as follows, “… bicontinuous polyelectrolyte complex (PEC)-layered nanofiltration membranes are designed for the selective recovery of VFAs using redox-mediated electrodialysis.” Specifically noting the value gained from the novel process, stating that, “Treatment of synthetic and cow manure fermentation effluents showcases 2 to 4-fold enrichment of VFAs and simultaneous removal of co-existing organic acids, with an energy consumption as low as 1.5 kWh kg−1.”

In plain language, the team fermented a cattle dung broth and then separated the lower-weight VFAs from the longer-chain VFAs and other substances in the mixture before using a novel redox-mediated electrodialysis nanofiltration technology to separate the desired chemicals from the rest.

“This is an innovative approach to utilizing waste material from concentrated animal production facilities, which contribute to environmental pollution, and converting it into valuable industrial chemicals,” said Prof. Roderick Ian Mackie who collaborated on the study.

“Electrodialysis is a very common separation technique used mostly in water desalination,” explains Su who has extensively investigated the electrochemical separation technique with hopes to apply it to industrial chemistry. “The problem is that ion-exchange membranes normally used in electrodialysis are not designed to distinguish between valuable VFAs used in chemical production. Through our work, we have designed new membranes with specific properties that can identify and discriminate between particular chemical species such as VFAs of different sizes.”

Compared to traditional separation methods, this innovative approach is far more efficient and produces a lot less chemical waste because it separates molecules using electrical means rather than chemical ones. Furthermore, Su believes that the technology can easily be adapted to an industrial scale.

“The next phase of this work,” says Su, “is figuring out how to implement our technology in a full process.”

This breakthrough marks a promising turning point in how agricultural waste is viewed and utilised. By converting animal dung into high-value industrial chemicals through an energy-efficient, scalable process, the researchers have not only solved a long-standing problem for livestock farmers but also opened new doors for sustainable chemical manufacturing.

As this technology moves closer to commercial application, it may well redefine waste management practices and help shift the chemical industry toward a truly circular economy. A place where sustainable innovation can make even the most unlikely materials—like manure—become vital ingredients for the chemical industry’s greener future.

Photo credit: Wikimedia, Sebastian Marx on Unsplash, Fulvio Ciccolo, & Chelaxy designs

The chemical industry is one of the planet’s most important employers and manufacturers. Unfortunately, it is also one of the world’s biggest polluters and consumer of resources. This means that if climate change is to be limited without lowering living standards, then chemical companies need to become more sustainable.

Embracing the circular economy is now seen as a key issue across the chemical industry, with nearly two-thirds of participants in an American Chemistry Council 2024 survey of executives stating that enhancing sustainability is their top priority for the ensuing two years, with nearly half of respondents believing it to be the biggest challenge the chemical sector is facing.

Related articles: When the Petrochemical Sector’s Green Dream Meets Harsh Reality or Waste to Wealth: Recycling Plastics into a More Valuable Feedstock

To achieve this means in-depth analysis, plenty of data, and a holistic approach to chemical production. As a recent report in the industry journal Specialty Chemicals Online, notes, “Whether the priority is to cut product carbon footprint, incorporate more renewable energy into processes, adopt more sustainable procurement practices and/or pursue other pathways to becoming a more sustainable business, chemical companies are going to need to rely heavily on fresh, high-quality data from internal and external sources—and on intelligent tools to manage and analyse that data—to meet that challenge.”

Facing up to the issue of sustainability will require a new way of thinking—an ideal role for artificial intelligence.

AI is already bringing massive changes to the workplace, driving efficiencies in data analytics, supply chain management, logistics organisation, chemical product pricing, and sales planning. However, when it comes to improving a chemical company’s sustainability, there are four key areas where AI adoption is yet to have the most significant impact.

1. Data and Reporting Compliance

The chemical industry, alongside other sectors, such as manufacturing, is on the verge of a new era of cooperative data exchange and standard-setting.

As individual chemical companies are increasingly required to provide sustainability-related information to their customers the need to compile data for regulator and adhere to stricter environmental laws will grow. As a frequent midstream player in receiving raw materials and supplying value downstream, chemical companies will need to invest more resources to manage information and comply with legislation. Such tasks are ideal for the application of AI tools.

One example of AI assisted data management can be found in the Together for Sustainability (TfS) initiative. As the Specialty Chemicals Online report notes, “… participants in TfS [have] separately created supplier information-sharing programmes for reporting emissions, including Scope 3, along with energy, water consumption and waste volumes.” The result is a Strategic CO2 Transparency Tool (SCOTT) methodology for calculating a product’s carbon footprint to help chemical companies conform to TfS standards.

This kind of action is setting the stage for digital passports that give consumers, authorities, and other interested parties access to a variety of details about particular products, such as the source of their industrial ingredients, a physical description, certification, carbon footprint, recyclability, and most notably content (renewable versus non-renewable).

“These passports will be required for products manufactured or sold into the EU from 2027 as part of the EU Green Deal,” explains Sergey Nozhenko, a chemical industry product specialist at SAP. “It probably will not be long before similar reporting requirements take hold in the US, as regulators, consumers and companies themselves push for a more sustainable chemical industry.”

2. Raw Material Sourcing

Artificial intelligence is also revolutionizing procurement in the chemical industry by enhancing data analysis, automating routine tasks, and improving supplier management. AI-driven tools can process complex datasets to forecast price trends, assess supplier performance, and predict potential supply chain disruptions, enabling procurement teams to make informed decisions and negotiate favourable contracts.

Furthermore, repetitive tasks, such as purchase order creation and invoice processing, can be automated to reduce errors and free up staff to focus on tasks better assigned to humans.

One notable example of AI integration in procurement is a specialty chemical company that implemented a digital material-number system to address inefficiencies in ordering low-value items. Unclear technical details and missing part numbers had been causing process delays and increased costs. By developing a simple algorithm linked to their requisitioner tool, the company streamlined the selection and ordering process. This initiative reduced maverick spending and enabled volume bundling for specific part numbers, leading to a 2% reduction in spending within the first year—a return on investment ten times the setup costs. ​

3. Process Optimisation

By enhancing process optimisation, chemical companies can increase efficiency, reduce costs, and improve sustainability. This is because AI algorithms are ideal tools for analysing vast amounts of data from chemical manufacturing processes to identify patterns and predict outcomes. This enables real-time adjustments that optimise operations and results in benefits such as reduced energy consumption, minimised waste, and enhanced chemical product quality.​

A notable example of AI-driven process optimization is BASF's collaboration with Louisiana State University (LSU). BASF, the world's largest chemical producer, partnered with LSU to implement AI and machine learning techniques to better understand and predict production variations at its Geismar, Louisiana plant. The project involved developing data mining processes to organise and compare current operating conditions with historical data.

By employing unsupervised machine learning, the team aimed to identify intrinsic behaviours of processes and uncover unforeseen patterns. This approach allowed BASF to optimise production workflows, develop soft sensors for real-time quality parameter estimation, and enhance decision-making processes.

4. Chemical Research and Product Development

​Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming chemical research and product development by enabling more efficient data analysis, accelerating discovery processes, and fostering innovation. AI algorithms can process vast datasets to identify patterns and predict outcomes, facilitating the design of novel compounds and materials with desired properties. This approach reduces the reliance on traditional trial-and-error methods, thereby saving time and resources.​

A notable example of AI integration in chemical research is Evonik Industries' development of a virtual formulation assistant for the paint and coatings industry. By utilizing AI and machine learning in a product branded as Coatino, Evonik is able to provide tailored additive recommendations based on specific user requirements.

By analysing extensive datasets and incorporating decades of expert knowledge, this AI tool can suggest optimal formulations to enhance efficiency and innovation in chemical product development.

AI is poised to play a crucial role in driving sustainability within the chemical industry. By optimizing procurement, enhancing compliance reporting, improving manufacturing processes, and accelerating research and development, AI enables companies to reduce waste, lower emissions, and create more sustainable chemical products.

With chemical industry leaders already keen to adopt AI for its inherent efficiencies, it cannot be long before they also embrace the advantages it offers for what they already see as the chemical sector’s greatest challenge—sustainability.

Photo credit: Freepik, Wirestock, Tom Fisk on Pexels, Rawkkim on Unsplash, & Omkar Jadhav

The global petrochemical industry is grappling with its worst downturn in decades. Overcapacity—caused by aggressive investment in production just as COVID-19 slowed economic growth—has collided with the growing pressure of transitioning to low-carbon energy sources. The situation is especially dire in Europe, where major players are reviewing their operations for possible closures.

These challenges were front and centre when nearly 1,500 chemical industry professionals gathered at the 40th World Petrochemical Conference in Houston, Texas. There it became evident from discussions that chemical firms are being forced to navigate complex decisions around sustainability, regulation, and market viability.

One of the major themes was the uncertainty surrounding the future of green hydrogen produced using renewable electricity. Bob Patel, director at Air Products & Chemicals, which recently cancelled two green hydrogen projects, emphasised that such ventures lack economic viability without substantial subsidies. Instead, blue hydrogen—created from hydrocarbons with captured emissions—is now being viewed as a more realistic low-carbon option due to lower costs.

Wall Street's enthusiasm for sustainable tech is also waning. Chemical industry analyst John Roberts noted the dramatic fall in stock prices of four recycling startups that raised nearly $3 billion earlier this decade. This trend reflects a broader cooling toward sustainability-related investments, as financial markets shift their focus to other tech areas which are deemed to have a brighter future, such as artificial intelligence and data centres.

“It’s difficult to see a business model today without subsidies,” observed Bob Patel, a former CEO of LyondellBasell Industries. Newer technology, changing government subsidies and regulations create uncertainties for all sustainability projects, meaning that investors in them will need to consider carefully before giving the green light. “If you can’t see a path to a clear, self-sustaining economic model over—let’s say over 5–10 years, maybe not 0–5—then likely it is not something you should be doing.”

“We will only invest in things that generate value,” explained Kim Foley, executive vice president of global olefins, polyolefins and refining at LyondellBasell. Before noting that LyondellBasell had reported a 65% increase in sales of recycled and renewable plastic resins in 2024. “There is clearly market demand for these solutions,” she concluded.

Similarly, Braskem has found niche success outperforming traditional resins with green polyethylene made from ethanol, targeting high-end packaging markets for products such as luxury cosmetics. The company has been making polyethylene from ethanol for more than a decade, explained CEO Roberto Ramos.  “It appeals to a client that would buy the green polyethylene but would not buy the fossil fuel polyethylene,” he said.

Despite promising projects, chemical industry leaders acknowledged that sustainability won't fix today’s deeper problems. From 2019 to 2034, chemical industry analysts predict that capacity for six key chemicals will grow by 23.4 million metric tons annually, while demand will rise by just 17.2 million metric tons. This imbalance is devastating margins—with ethylene cracker utilization having already dropped from 90% in 2019 to 80% in 2023, leaving little profit for facilities using expensive feedstocks like naphtha, common in Europe and Asia.

Related articles: India’s Chemical Industry: Poised for Global Dominance or A Lost Year or a Lost Future for the EU Chemical Industry?

Dow CEO Jim Fitterling said the situation marks only the third extended downturn since the 1970s. He blamed not only feedstock overcapacity but also global economic stagnation and collapsing demand, especially in Europe. Since the pandemic, Fitterling notes, European industrial chemical demand has fallen 20% due to high costs and regulatory burdens. “Europe had a thriving chemicals industry, but what happened is that you had downstream customers leave,” in what he called a “wave of deindustrialization.”

Ilham Kadri, CEO of Syensqo and president of the European Chemical Industry Council, highlighted how Europe’s energy crisis worsened after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Losing access to cheap Russian gas pushed energy prices 4–4.5 times higher than in other regions. She also criticized excessive regulation—1,400 pages added since 2019—and warned that trade tensions, particularly those heightened by Trump 2.0, are complicating operations further.

In the US, the petrochemical sector is bracing for a volatile future. Chris Jahn of the American Chemistry Council stressed the need to shield the industry from retaliatory tariffs and protect access to key raw materials amid possible trade conflicts.

Longer-term, the US advantage—cheap ethane from the shale boom—may be fading. S&P’s Kurt Barrow projected that US natural gas liquids production, which grew 95% from 2005 to 2025, will increase only 12% in the following decade. By the 2030s, ethane output may plateau, leading to cost pressures and possibly forcing a return to less efficient feedstocks like naphtha.

As the petrochemical industry confronts one of its most turbulent eras, leaders are being forced to reconcile long-term sustainability goals with the urgent need for economic survival. The conference made clear that innovation alone cannot resolve fundamental imbalances in supply and demand, nor can green initiatives thrive without supportive policy and market conditions. While certain niche solutions show promise and companies remain committed to generating value through more sustainable chemical products, the road ahead will require strategic recalibration.

For, while low-carbon projects remain critical for the future, the chemical industry is in immediate crisis—driven by oversupply, weakening demand, regulatory challenges, and an uncertain global trade environment.

Photo credit: Wirestock, evening_tao, fanjianhua on Freepik, dit26978, & Flickr

In today’s intense business climate, there is a fine margin between profit and loss for chemical companies. Every nudge in pricing, every blip in supply logistics, and every kilo of wasted raw material compile and compound to find the difference between failure and success.

Pushing the envelope of efficiency requires employing an army of chemical industry workers to manage computerised chemical processes, data analysis, sales support, and in-depth research of chemical products and markets.

And coordinating this pool of talent and resources requires its own special tool.

Step forward Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems—a single, centralized platform which can smoothly integrate all of a chemical manufacturer’s or supplier’s key business processes.

At its core, an ERP system coordinates—inventory management, production planning, procurement, finance, compliance, and customer relationship management—into a single, management structure. For chemical manufacturers and suppliers, this centralized approach helps streamline operations, minimize manual input, and reduce the risk of human error. Meaning that tasks which once required multiple spreadsheets or disconnected systems can now be managed with real-time data flow across departments.

From stringent safety and environmental regulations to complex supply chain requirements and the need for precise quality control, chemical businesses which utilise ERP systems operate with increased precision, efficiency, and agility.

However, the advantages are most notable in four key areas.

Boosting Supply Chain Visibility

ERP systems provide real-time visibility into the entire supply chain, from suppliers and inventory levels to customer orders and delivery logistics. This is especially important in the chemical sector, where delays or disruptions can be costly and dangerous.

For example, ERP systems can automatically adjust procurement schedules based on raw material availability and production forecasts. This reduces overstocking or understocking issues, saving both space and money. In addition, production runs can be better coordinated with delivery schedules and customer demands, ensuring a smoother workflow from start to finish.

Related articles: How Chemical Companies Should Handle the Scope 3 Emission Guidelines or Survey finds Chemical Industry Logistics Fears are Growing

With an ERP system, chemical business managers can make better-informed decisions based on accurate data. They can identify bottlenecks, conduct real-time inventory tracking, control chemical product expiry dates, manage batch and lot tracking, predict potential disruptions, and have a better overview of what is needed when and where.

A recent report in the UK’s Chemical Industry Journal even highlights an example of transferring from a manual oversight of chemical product procurement to an ERP system, noting the benefits gained at Bernard Laboratories, a US-based chemical manufacturer.

“Everything is linked together so you can find the piece of data you’re looking for by using various criteria,” says Alece Piper, the chemical company’s Vice President. “You can’t achieve this level of efficiency with spreadsheets.”

Improving Customer Service and Business Agility

Today’s customers expect more than just on-time delivery—they want transparency, responsiveness, and customized solutions. This is why ERP systems give sales and customer service teams access to up-to-date information on order status, inventory, pricing, and customer history, enabling them to respond quickly and accurately to customer inquiries.

Moreover, the flexibility of ERP platforms allows chemical companies to adapt to market changes or customer demand. Whether it’s launching a new product, entering a new region, or responding to supply chain disruptions, ERP systems support faster decision-making and execution.

Assistance with Regulatory Compliance

The chemical industry is among the most regulated sectors in the world. Companies must comply with local and international standards such as REACH, GHS, OSHA, and ISO certifications. An ERP system can be customized to monitor compliance with these regulations and maintain documentation for audits. This includes automatic generation of regulatory reports, tracking safety data sheets (SDS) and hazardous materials, and ensuring that labelling is accurate and kept in line with industry requirements.

At Stakam, a Scottish chemical manufacturer struggling with REACH and REACH UK compliance, Alistair Watson, the Managing Director, describes the adoption of an ERP system as ‘like striking gold.’

“It’s become such an asset,” he said, “that I often grapple between wanting to keep it as our secret weapon and the desire to showcase our robust systems.”

Improved Planning and Streamlined Production

Cost control is essential for SMEs in the chemical sector as changing raw material prices and accumulated waste can easily affect profitability. With ERP software in place, chemical companies can take advantage of automated cost computation, accurate sales tracking, waste reduction, comprehensive financial reporting, and forecasting for improved decision-making.

ERP software also helps manage traceability by keeping detailed records of every batch, from raw materials to finished goods. If a quality issue arises, the system can quickly identify the source and affected products, allowing for swift corrective action and limiting potential damage to the brand or customer trust.

Potential Drawbacks to Consider

While ERP systems offer significant advantages, they are not without challenges. The initial cost of implementation can be high, especially for small to mid-sized chemical companies, with the process often requiring substantial time and resources. Customizing the system to suit industry-specific needs—such as complex formulas, hazardous materials handling, or regulatory compliance—can also add further complexity.

Additionally, if not properly managed, ERP rollouts can disrupt existing workflows and lead to employee resistance. Without proper training and change management, even the most advanced system can fall short of expectations. Therefore, businesses must approach ERP adoption strategically, ensuring they choose the right provider and allocate sufficient support for a smooth transition.

That said, many chemical businesses face rising pressures—from global competition and shifting regulations to increased customer expectation and fluctuating raw material costs. By centralizing operations and improving traceability, ERP platforms put all of these factors in a manageable context—enabling data-driven decision-making and a clearer pathway to success.

That is why many chemical companies and raw material suppliers no longer see ERP systems as a luxury, but as a strategic necessity.

Photo credit: Vida Huang on Unsplash, Jacques Dillies, Alvaro Reyes, Freepik, & Freepik

2024 has been called by many as the ‘lost year’ for European chemical industry production, yet 2025 is shaping up to be no better, as chemical industry analysts can see no end in sight for struggling European chemical companies.

The global economy has had a difficult ride over the past few years with disruptions occurring one after another. The 2008 banking crisis, Brexit, Trump’s first trade war, COVID, supply chain disruptions, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and now Trump’s second upheaval to global trade have all dented economic optimism.

“The chemical industry is heavily dependent on consumer sentiment, as almost all consumer goods contain chemicals, at least indirectly. And consumer sentiment is in turn strongly influenced by psychology,” explains Peter Hartl, Head of Studies and Partner at the Horváth business consultancy.

But are these emotions only a short-lived glitch or are there deeper problems that the EU chemical sector needs to resolve?

Short-term Outlook for EU Chemical Sector

The short-term outlook for the EU chemical sector remains cautious as it continues to face several challenges. After a period of contraction driven by high energy costs, supply chain disruptions, and a stagnant local economy, the industry is beginning to show some signs of stabilization. The easing of energy prices, particularly natural gas, has provided some relief to producers heavily reliant on energy-intensive chemical processes. Additionally, a gradual recovery in key downstream industries—such as automotive, construction, and pharmaceuticals—is helping to support demand for chemical products.

However, the sector still faces pressure from global competition, especially from producers in regions with lower energy and regulatory costs. The transition toward greener production methods and compliance with the EU Green Deal and REACH regulations is also requiring significant investment, which is putting smaller chemical businesses under strain.

While minimal growth is expected in 2025, the risks of geopolitical instability, uncertain economic conditions, and a possible global recession risk destroying any chance of even the slightest recovery.

“The threat of trade wars and news of job cuts are dampening consumer sentiment in Germany and Europe,” adds Hartl. Neither of which are promising signs for chemical producers.

Long-term Outlook for EU Chemical Sector

The long-term outlook for the EU chemical sector is shaped by the dual needs of sustainability and competitiveness. As the EU advances its Green Deal objectives and moves towards climate neutrality by 2050, the chemical industry will play a central role in enabling a low-carbon, circular economy. This transition presents both opportunities and challenges. Companies that invest early in green technologies—such as electrification, bio-based feedstocks, and carbon capture—are likely to gain a competitive edge as the development of sustainable chemicals and raw materials will be key to meeting regulatory and consumer demand.

Digitalization could also reshape the chemical sector in Europe’s favour, improving efficiency and enabling smarter, safer production. Strategic autonomy could also reduce dependence on foreign suppliers for critical chemicals while also driving localised investment.

“Technology is not only increasingly finding its way into internal processes, but also into core functions and areas of the company, such as production planning and sales in pricing,” notes Hartl. “Alongside decarbonization, digitalization is the absolute top topic for the future and growth, and the industry will make further major progress here in the coming months.”

However, these are transitions which require massive capital investment, particularly in modernizing infrastructure and adapting to stricter environmental standards. Given the extraordinary turmoil in global markets and considerable nervousness among investors, chemical industry analysts are questioning how much European chemical companies can endure.

This leaves the European chemical industry standing at a crossroads. While short-term stabilization may offer a glimmer of hope, deep-rooted structural challenges and global uncertainties continue to cast a long shadow over its recovery.

Related articles: India’s Chemical Industry: Poised for Global Dominance, Trump 2.0's Approach to Chemical Regulation or The UK Chemical Industry’s Roadmap to Survival

However, without decisive support from policymakers, bold investment in innovation, and a rethinking of Europe’s industrial competitiveness, the risk is that the continent’s chemical industry will not only stumble through a ‘lost year’ but could even face a lost decade. Whether recovery is possible will depend not only on external conditions but on how boldly the industry and its stakeholders choose to act now.

The chemical sector’s future depends on its ability to adapt—not only to shifting consumer sentiment and volatile geopolitics, but also to the pressing demands of sustainability and digital transformation. For while the road ahead is complex, the European chemical sector’s adaptability and innovation may well yet position it for a sustainable and competitive future.

Photo credit: Javier Gomez on Unsplash, Raw Pixel on Freepik, Starline, & Kjpargeter

The Indian chemical industry is a force of production, ranking as the 6th largest manufacturer of chemicals globally, and the 3rd largest in Asia, behind China and Japan.

It is also an industry which is set for increasing growth. With a current valuation of approximately $220 billion in 2023, it is projected be worth as much as $300 billion by the end of the year, before reaching a $1 trillion value by 2040 – a staggering surge in output comparable with China at the start of the century.

A large part of India’s current and future success is based on its domestic market. For example, India is the 4th largest producer of agrochemicals in the world but is also the 2nd largest consumer of fertilisers.

A better area of success for Indian chemical companies is dye production. Here again, chemical producers have access to a thriving domestic market, with textile manufacturing thriving across India and elsewhere across the sub-continent.

India is the global leader in dye production, accounting for almost 30% of dye exports. Specifically, it is the largest manufacturer of reactive dyes, making up 30% of global production, and the 2nd largest producer of disperse dyes holding a 25% share of the global market.

Much like the wider Indian chemical industry, this sector is predicted to grow, currently increasing at 8.5% per annum. This success is due to proximity to markets, access to investment funds, a strengthening supply chain, and a low-cost workforce.

Related articles: Chemical Industry Distribution at a Pivotal Moment or Why India’s Chemical Sector is Succeeding

A further advantage, and one which was highlighted by Marco Mensink, Director General, European Chemical Industry Council – CEFIC, is access to cheaper energy. This being one of the key reasons why the average cost of producing reactive dyes in Europe has been calculated as being 30 to 40% higher than in India.

At the recent Chemical Industry Outlook Conference in Mumbai organised by the Indian Chemical Council (ICC) Mensink also observed that the global chemical industry was in a state of rapid transition. For European chemical producers, there “… are fears over the Ukraine war, political uncertainties, and global overcapacities, such that the European chemical industry may lose its pole position.” He also noted that India accounted for 2.6 % of global chemical sales in 2023 and was in a prime position to advance its position.

As a report in the textile industry journal Fibre2Fashion, notes, “India produces over 200,000 metric tons of dyes annually, making it one of the largest producers globally. In comparison, Europe’s production capacity has declined to 100,000-120,000 metric tons annually, down from over 300,000 metric tons in the 1990s.” The result is that “India accounts for 25-30 per cent of global dye exports, while Europe’s share has declined to 10-15 per cent.”

Also speaking at the Mumbai conference, Dr Kartik Bharat Ram, the ICC President and Joint Managing Director of SRF Ltd, agreed that the Indian chemical industry had great opportunities for expansion.

“With rising domestic consumption, shifting supply chains, and competitive costs, the sector is poised for significant growth,” he stated, before requesting, “Government support and technological advancements [to] further drive this momentum.”

It was a position supported by a spokesperson for the Indian government, Deepankar Aron, Joint Secretary, Chemicals, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals at the tax collection body the IRS who noted that, “With chemical exports contributing 7% of India’s merchandise exports ($45 billion last year) and FDI inflows nearing $20 billion over two decades, the sector remains a key growth driver.” He also reiterated the Indian government’s commitment to supporting manufacturing, by highlighting the INDOVATION initiative, which focuses on “affordable, accessible, and sustainable innovation with Indian characteristics.”

However, the Indian chemical industry is not without its problems, as despite (or even because of) its robust growth, the industry faces challenges, particularly concerning environmental sustainability. The 1984 Bhopal disaster's lingering impact underscores the need for stringent safety and environmental protocols. Recent clean-up efforts have been criticized as insufficient, highlighting the necessity for comprehensive decontamination and responsible waste management.

Rachna Dhingra, a coordinator of the International Campaign for Justice Bhopal, calling a recent government clean-up of the former Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals site a “farce and greenwashing publicity stunt to remove a tiny fraction of the least harmful waste.” Speaking to the Guardian newspaper, she said, “There’s still 1.1m tonnes of poisonous waste leaching into the ground every day that they refuse to deal with. We can see for ourselves the birth defects and chronic health conditions.”

Kamal Nanavaty, President at Reliance Industries Ltd, a Fortune 500 company and India’s largest private sector corporation, agrees that Indian chemical companies should do more, suggesting that they, “…give the utmost priority to sustainability and to safety,” calling, “… the recent spate of accidents in the industry, a matter of concern.”

Other challenges, according to Suyog Kotecha, CEO of Aarti Industries, a leading Indian manufacturer of speciality chemicals, remain in the Indian chemical industry’s supply chain, with procurement issues based on lower labour productivity, an over dependence on imported feedstocks, and a lack of sufficient integration to value chains. “We don’t have end to end integrated value chains in India and this is a drawback,” he stated.

Despite these challenges, the Indian chemical industry is well-poised for success over the coming decades.

“The shift towards sustainability, circularity, biobased products are all also opening up many opportunity areas,” explains Avinash Goyal, a senior partner at the industry consultants McKinsey & Sons. “India has good opportunities in building world scale plants in chemicals like for citric acid, TiO2, polyether, polyols, EVA, MDI etc. We need both scale and value chain integration as well as hi-tech R&D.”

If this can be achieved, he believes that the sector can ‘leapfrog’ its global competitors.

As it stands, the Indian chemical industry is on a remarkable growth trajectory, with its strong domestic market, competitive production costs, and increasing global influence placing it as a future leader in the sector. While challenges such as environmental sustainability, supply chain inefficiencies, and regulatory frameworks remain, the industry’s resilience and adaptability continue to drive expansion. If government support, investment in R&D, and a commitment to safety and sustainability can be enhanced, then India is well on its way to further increasing chemical output.

As ICC President Bharat Ram concludes, “Now, our focus must be on positioning India as a global powerhouse in chemicals.”

Photo credit: Expressive capture on Unsplash, Px here, Frank S, Pinclipart, & Wikimedia

“Our goal is to get toxins out of our environment, poisons out of our food supply and keep our children healthy and strong,” said President Donald Trump at his first joint address to Congress since his return to the Whitehouse.

It was a statement backed up by his appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr as Health and Human Services Secretary alongside the adoption of the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ slogan. A way to prove to his supporters that he was following up on his campaign promise to be tough on toxic chemicals.  

It is a move which has gone some way to get tough on chemical companies, as Kennedy Jr has long been an advocate of natural living, even to the point, his critics claim, of being an ‘anti-vaxxer’—something he denied during his Senate confirmation hearing. In a bold, proactive move against the chemical industry, Kennedy has vowed to close a legal loophole that permits businesses to add chemicals to food without informing authorities.

“The practice Kennedy is targeting, known as ‘generally recognized as safe’ (GRAS), can occur when companies self-certify the safety of a food additive,” explains the Washington Post. “[It means that] Companies aren’t required to tell the FDA when they include some chemicals and substances in their products, meaning there are probably hundreds of such ingredients added to the food supply without government oversight.”

MAGA fans believe that this is a clear sign of Trump following up on his campaign promises, not only on chemical food additives, but in other areas, such as power, transport, and manufacturing.

“President Trump’s agenda is proof that we can restore American energy dominance while advancing environmental stewardship,” claimed White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers. “…ridding our environment, water, and food supply of dangerous toxins.”

However, a recent report by the political journal The Hill has shown that overall, Trump’s words do not align with his actions. Instead, he has repeatedly enacted policies that favour chemical companies, repealed or relaxed environmental restrictions on chemical producers, and appointed officials with a history of supporting or working with the chemical industry.

“Last week, it [the Trump Administration] dropped a lawsuit that aimed to force a company to reduce its emissions of a substance the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers likely to cause cancer in an already highly polluted area,” notes the report. “The administration also indicated that it is likely to reduce the stringency of safety screenings for potentially harmful chemicals. Among the chemicals that are currently undergoing the screening process is vinyl chloride, a toxic substance used to make PVC plastic that was released, along with other chemicals, in a train derailment in Ohio in 2023.”

Another sign of the administration’s chemical industry policy is Trump’s response to the Biden administration suing Denka Performance Elastomer in 2023 to force the company to reduce its chloroprene emissions. According to a different report in The Hill, “The Trump administration has dropped the lawsuit that sought to cut toxic emissions from the facility.” This is despite it being located in a highly polluted area of Louisiana known as ‘Cancer Alley.’

The Trump administration has also hinted at plans to repeal Biden-era regulations which hoped to prevent chemical accidents. The legislation was aimed at raising safety standards at 12,000 industrial sites, such as chemical manufacturers and distributors, oil refineries, food and beverage producers, and distributors of agricultural supplies, but may now be removed.

Similarly, Biden-era measures to restrict the quantity of ‘forever chemicals’ that manufacturers can discharge into the water were retracted by the EPA in January. A further range of environmental rollbacks have also been announced by the EPA, such as a Biden-era rule governing emissions of the carcinogen ethylene oxide, which is used to sterilise medical devices.

Related articles: Trump, Trade, and Tariffs for the Chemicals Sector or How Legislators are Failing to Stop the Use of PFAS

Moreover, Trump’s other appointments have also raised eyebrows and seem to be in contrast to the Make America Healthy Again slogan. For example, “Trump’s pick for the No. 2 role at the EPA represented opponents of a ban on asbestos in court,” reports The Hill. Adding that, “His nominee to lead its air and radiation office has lobbied on behalf of makers of ‘forever chemicals’ and users of ethylene oxide, among others. The administration has also hired a 30-year veteran of chemical company DuPont, which has historically made and used ‘forever chemicals’.”

In response, the Trump Administration has stated that it is working on balance.

“No longer will the EPA view the goals of protecting our environment and growing our economy as binary choices,” said an EPA spokesperson. “We will and we must choose both.”

However, critics, such as Eve Gartner, a director at the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, believes that Trump’s policies will simply remove many policies aimed at reducing exposure to toxic chemicals.

“We know that the rules that were adopted in the Biden administration would result in significant health benefits for communities, including lower cancer rates,” she said. “Rolling back those rules inevitably will result in more cancer, including more children with cancer.”

The contrast between Trump’s rhetoric and his administration’s actions on environmental health is stark. While the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ slogan and the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. signalled a commitment to reducing toxins in food and the environment, the administration’s other policy decisions tell a different story. By revoking key regulations, favouring corporate interests, and appointing officials with ties to the chemical industry, Trump’s administration appears to be prioritizing economic growth over the environment.

Whether the administration will ultimately follow through on its promises to safeguard public health remains uncertain. However, one thing is clear—without strong and consistent regulatory action, the risk of exposure to toxic chemicals will persist, leaving Americans to bear the consequences of policy decisions that prioritize industry over safety.

As Daniel Rosenberg, director of federal toxics policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council concludes, “Every fox guarding the hen house or the chicken coop is a problem.”

Photo credit: Flickr, Freepik, LOC, & Wikimedia

At present only 9% of the 450 million tons of global plastic waste created each year is recycled. Most of it is burnt or buried, or worse still, ends up in oceans and waterways.

A major part of the problem is the inefficiency of current plastic recycling—most of which is done mechanically. However, over time the polymer chains from mechanically recycled plastic degrade and lose their value and usefulness.

Chemical recycling is more efficient in returning the raw materials back to their monomer forms, but the processes are specific for each individual plastic type. What is needed is a universal process which can recycle all manner of plastic waste in a way that adds value to the polymers.

Fortunately, a team of chemical researchers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) have now found a way to generate new macromolecules with more valuable properties than those of the starting material by way of molecular editing.

Two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry have already been awarded for molecular editing because of its immense promise. The first was won in 2005 by the creators of the metathesis reaction, which creates and breaks double bonds between carbon atoms in rings and chains. This process allows the subunits of these rings and chains to swap, creating new molecules in any form desired. The second was won in 2020 by the creators of CRISPR, the so-called ‘genetic scissors’ which can modify strands of DNA.

It is this ability to alter molecular chains which is the basis for this novel solution to plastic recycling.

“This is CRISPR for editing polymers,” explains Jeffrey Foster, who led the study at ORNL. “However, instead of editing strands of genes, we are editing polymer chains. This isn’t the typical plastic recycling ‘melt and hope for the best’ scenario.”

Related articles: The Many Routes to Oil-Free Plastic or The Polyurethane Problem of Mattress Recycling

Significantly, the polymer researchers focused on a variety of plastic waste to prove the versatility of the new recycling method: this included polybutadiene (a common industrial feedstock for car tyres) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (the stiff plastic used to manufacture computer keyboards, kids’ toys, kitchen appliances, and ventilation pipes).

“This is a waste stream that's really not recycled at all,” notes Foster. “We’re addressing a significant component of the waste stream with this technology. That’d make a pretty big impact just from conservation of mass and energy from materials that are now going into landfills.”

The process begins by dissolving the waste polymers by first mechanically shredding them before immersing them into the solvent dichloromethane for less than two hours at 40 degrees Celsius. A ruthenium catalyst (common in the plastics and biomass processing sectors) is then used to aid polymerization.

“The molecular building blocks of the polymer backbone contain functional groups, or clusters of atoms that serve as reactive sites for modification,” explains the industrial chemical journal Azom. “Notably, the double bonds between carbons increase the chances for chemical reactions that enable polymerization. A carbon ring opens at a double bond to create a polymer chain that grows as each functional polymer unit directly slips in, conserving the material. The plastic additive also helps control the molecular weight of the synthesized material and, in turn, its properties and performance.”

It is at this stage that the synthesis strategy can be adopted to modify the polymers into a new chemical product, creating a feedstock for a polymer which could be softer or more malleable than the original plastic. Alternatively, a harder or more durable thermoset may be required, so the process could be adapted accordingly.

The researchers then used two different chemical processes simultaneously to efficiently complete the recycling.

“One process,” the university explains, “called ring-opening metathesis polymerization, opens carbon rings and elongates them into chains. The other process, called cross metathesis, inserts chains of polymer subunits from one polymer chain into another.”

Because traditional recycling uses polymers that degrade with each melt and reuse, it is unable to recover the value in wasted plastics. However, as this new process can selectively modify the polymers, value can actually be added instead of lost.

“The new process has high atom economy,” notes Foster. “That means that we can pretty much recover all the material that we put in.”

The team are now looking into ways in which the process can be upscaled to an industrial level, as well as studying what other polymer waste can be used. Possibly even high-performance thermoset materials, like polyurethane, silicone, epoxy resins, and vulcanized rubber.

“The vision,” explains Foster, “is that this concept could be extended to any polymer that has some sort of backbone functional group to react with.”

The development of this groundbreaking polymer editing technique represents a major leap forward in the quest to tackle plastic waste. By transforming discarded plastics into high-value materials through a versatile and efficient chemical process, researchers at ORNL have opened the door to sustainable and economically viable recycling solutions. Unlike conventional methods that degrade the quality of plastics with each cycle, this innovative approach not only preserves but potentially enhances the material's value.

This ultimately opens up the prospect of a future where plastic waste becomes a valuable resource rather than an expensive, ecological burden.

Photo credit: Freepik, Frimufilms, Wirestock, & Freepik

Economically, the UK is struggling.

In January 2025, the UK's inflation rate rose to 3%, the highest in ten months, driven by increased transport and food costs. This was after GDP growth had already flatlined in late 2024, when at the same time, economic forecasters predicted only 1% growth throughout 2025.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its once mighty chemical industry which has been shrinking year-on-year for decades—contracting by almost 10% in 2023 alone.

There are many reasons for this situation. British industrial energy prices are 60% higher than their competitors in the EU, Brexit has added additional bureaucracy and import/export delays, successive UK governments have added stringent environmental rules and regulations, access to North Sea oil and gas is slowly drying up, British and European manufacturing sectors are shrinking, while low-cost chemical imports from America and Asia are forcing local chemical prices lower and lower.  

The result is a shrinking chemical industry, with the UK’s Chemical Industry Association (CIA) reporting that in 2024 the sector’s output was 23.2% below pre-COVID levels.

So, what must the UK’s chemical industry do to stop the slide, and can it ever return to its previous status as an industrial power to be reckoned with?

According to a recent report by the CIA, there is a possibility to reverse the trend of decreasing chemical output, but it will require significant investment and a major shift in strategic direction.

Here are the key areas, which it and other chemical industry analysts have listed, as requiring change if the UK chemical industry is to survive.

1.Cheaper Energy

The UK chemical industry is struggling with high energy costs, which significantly impact competitiveness on the global stage. Unlike countries such as the US, which benefits from cheap shale gas, or Germany, which has historically enjoyed subsidized energy policies, UK manufacturers face some of the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe. Evidence of this was laid clear in a recent report in the UK’s Chemical Industry Journal which noted that, “UK industrial energy prices are 60% higher than their competitors in the EU.”

This burden makes it harder for domestic producers to compete with international rivals, leading to reduced investment, plant closures, and potential job losses. Without cost-effective energy solutions, the industry's long-term sustainability is at risk.

Related articles: Research Outlines EU Chemical Industry Fears or The Many Routes to Oil-Free Plastic

To tackle this issue, the UK government and industry leaders must work together to develop a more competitive energy strategy. Investing in renewable energy infrastructure, expanding nuclear capacity, and securing better access to lower-cost natural gas could help reduce costs. Additionally, improving energy efficiency through advanced manufacturing techniques, such as heat recovery systems and electrification of processes, would help chemical businesses lower their energy consumption and become more resilient against price fluctuations.

2.The Skills Gap

The UK chemical industry is facing a growing skills shortage, as an aging workforce retires, and not enough young talent enters the sector. The demand for highly skilled professionals—such as chemical engineers, process technicians, and data analysts—has increased, but the number of graduates and apprenticeships has not kept pace. Furthermore, Brexit has led to a decline in the number of skilled workers coming from the EU, exacerbating the problem. Without urgent action, the skills gap could slow down innovation, productivity, and the overall growth of the sector.

Skills shortages are a major concern for many developing countries, with the number of graduates for chemical engineering, chemistry, mathematics, and other STEM subjects most prominent among these concerns. This recently led the Chief Executive of the UK’s Chemical Business Association to raise this issue as a major cause of concern for the chemical sector’s long-term sustainability.

To prevent this decay, the chemical industry must invest in training and education initiatives, as well as encourage more students to pursue careers in the chemical sector through targeted school outreach programs and university partnerships. Expanding apprenticeship schemes and retraining programs for existing workers can also help develop a more resilient workforce.

Additionally, government incentives—such as tax breaks for companies investing in training—could encourage businesses to take a more proactive role in upskilling employees.

3. Secure Access to Markets

Post-Brexit trade barriers have created uncertainty for the UK chemical industry, which relies heavily on exports. Previously, EU membership provided frictionless trade and regulatory alignment, but new customs procedures, tariffs, and legal divergence have increased costs and administrative burdens. This has made UK exports less competitive and threatened supply chain stability. Without clear trade agreements and easier market access, businesses may relocate production or lose customers to international rivals.

To maintain global competitiveness, the UK must negotiate more favourable trade agreements with both the EU and other key markets, such as the US and Asia. Mutual recognition of chemical regulations, like REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals), would help reduce compliance costs and trade disruptions. Additionally, government support for export businesses—through grants, simplified customs processes, and trade missions—can help UK companies expand into new markets and mitigate the impact of Brexit-related barriers.

4. Adopt AI Efficiencies

The chemical industry has been slow to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) compared to other sectors, missing out on opportunities for cost savings, improved efficiency, and innovation. Many chemical plants still rely on traditional methods for production planning, quality control, and predictive maintenance, leading to excessive waste and unnecessary downtime. Without embracing AI, UK manufacturers risk falling behind competitors that are leveraging machine learning for smarter operations and decision-making.

By integrating AI technologies, companies can enhance productivity and reduce costs. Predictive analytics can help anticipate equipment failures before they happen, minimizing downtime and maintenance expenses. AI-driven process optimization can also improve yields and energy efficiency by fine-tuning production parameters in real-time.

To accelerate adoption, chemical businesses should invest in digital transformation strategies, partner with AI technology firms, and train employees in data science and automation. Government incentives and funding for AI research in manufacturing could further support this shift, ensuring the UK chemical industry remains competitive in the future.

The UK chemical industry is at a critical crossroads. Decades of rising costs, shrinking markets, and outdated infrastructure have weakened a once-thriving sector, but survival—and even growth—is still possible with the right strategic shifts. By addressing key challenges such as high energy prices, skills shortages, and trade barriers, while also modernizing facilities and embracing AI-driven efficiencies, the industry can regain its competitive edge.

However, these changes require urgent and coordinated action from both businesses and policymakers. Investment in innovation, infrastructure, and workforce development will be essential to reversing the decline. If the UK chemical industry can adapt to global trends and technological advancements, it has the potential not only to survive but to reclaim its place as a key player in the international market.

Photo credit: Geograph, Flickr, Wirestock on Freepik, Bedney Images, & Wirestock1.

When analysing the impact of the Trump Administration’s trade policies and plans to impose import duties, the immediate response of many is the impact it will have not on those selling to America, but the cost impact to end-consumers or those dependent on feedstocks to manufacture within the US.

This is the second part of a two-part article examining the chemical industry's response to the Trump Administration's trade tariffs. You can also read Trump, Trade, and Tariffs for the Chemicals Sector Part 1

As says Jason Miller, a supply chain professor at Michigan State University, notes, “Tariffs make downstream sectors less competitive and, ultimately, will be detrimental to total US manufacturing output once they are implemented.”

“In 2023, US plastics exports totaled $74.2 billion exceeding imports of $73.3 billion and resulting in a $958 million trade surplus,” notes a Plastics Today report quoting the Association’s data. “This strength underscores the industry's global leadership; however, new tariffs on key trading partners threaten supply chains, increase costs, and risk eroding this advantage.”

The US Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS), is similarly cautious, as it fears retaliatory tariffs could impact the sectors successful trade flows. After all, compared to many chemical manufacturers, in Europe for example, America is well-supplied with raw materials, such as shale gas.

Elsewhere inside the US, other industry experts are more supportive of Trump 2.0 and plans to onshore chemical production and manufacturing. The American Mold Builders Association (AMBA), for one is keen to encourage the return of mold building in the plastics sector, as a lot of production has moved overseas in previous decades.

“AMBA continues to strongly support President Trump's efforts to level the playing field by applying tariffs on imported Chinese molds, tooling, and dies,” states Kym Conis, the trade body’s managing director. “The new combined 35% tariff rate President Trump placed on imports helps to counter the undervaluation of these critical goods, which often enter the US from China at 40 to 60% below the cost of an American-manufactured mold.”

Others fear that tariffs can only ever be disruptive to trade, particularly if they are placed on neighbouring countries.

“Each year, more than $8 billion in recycled materials cross the US-Canada border, while nearly $3.3 billion of recycled products cross the US-Mexico border,” explained Robin K. Wiener, President of the Recycled Materials Association (ReMA).

While a completely open-border policy is not practical due to reasons outside of international trade and the supply of raw materials, Wiener is quick to highlight how manufacturers across North America and beyond are co-dependent on each other. A fine network of suppliers, manufacturers, and retailers that make up the global trade network which could be easily disrupted if trade restrictions and import duties go too far.

“While we understand the Trump Administration must focus on solutions to address major problems at the border,” Weiner concludes. “The imposition of tariffs on our North American trading partners will significantly disrupt US manufacturing and recycling operations that depend on recycled material inputs.”

Related articles: Trump, Tariffs, and Chemical Trading or The Why, When, and How of Changing Raw Material Suppliers

The debate over tariffs and trade policies under Trump 2.0 highlights a deep divide within the chemicals and plastics industries. While some groups support tariffs as a means to strengthen domestic manufacturing, others warn of supply chain disruptions and rising costs that could weaken U.S. competitiveness. With key industry associations voicing concerns over the potential fallout, the future of North American trade remains uncertain. Only time will tell how chemical companies will adapt to these evolving policies and shape the industry's long-term stability.

As Matt Seaholm, CEO and President of the US Plastics Industry Association, notes, “A strategic, measured approach to trade is critical to strengthening — not inadvertently harming — US industry.”

Whatever private opinions experts may hold over Trump’s outspoken rhetoric and sometimes controversial views, chemical industry producers, traders, and suppliers need to get serious about the impact White House policy will have.

Consequently, as the situation on tariffs further unfolds, industry leaders and policymakers must weigh the benefits of protectionist measures against the risks of disrupting a highly interconnected global market. Because much like Trump 2.0’s other policies, the decisions the administration will make on trade over the next four years will a lasting impact on the chemical sector even after he has left office.

Photo credit: Ivan Karpov on Unsplash, Freepik, & Wirestock

President Donald Trump is frequently in the news of late. From immigration policy and geopolitical posturing to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and the war against woke, rolling media keeps a steady flow of updates from the White House.

In the world of industry and manufacturing, the Trump Administration’s policies also remain a constant point of discussion as businesses everywhere examine the true impact on trade caused by tariffs on goods and raw materials imported to America. Nowhere is this more significant than for the chemicals and plastics sectors which rely so heavily on international cooperation and ease of trade. For while the global trade network has been here before, Trump 2.0 seems to be a sterner test of nerves for importers and exporters.

But what do experts in the chemical industry believe will be the largest impact and how will individual chemical traders, manufacturers, and their customers have to adjust?

The over-riding fear for many in the chemical sector is that tariffs will simply drive-up prices for end consumers. The alternative will be for companies to make strategic changes to their raw material sourcing or manufacturing location, which will also push up prices. As a recent report published in Plastics Today explains, “There is concern throughout the plastics industry that tariffs will slow production timelines as suppliers work through supply chain disruptions. In response, some companies are considering alternative sourcing strategies, including seeking domestic suppliers or diversifying their imports.”

With a long history of close cooperation, the Canadian and American chemical industries are intertwined. Chemical manufacturers in one region or country supply a chemical facility in another with the raw materials it needs, before it, in turn, can pass on a feedstock to the next chemical company in the supply chain.

“The chemistry sector is highly integrated in North America, and I would say the degree of that integration, frankly, is reflected in The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that was renewed in President Trump's first term,” notes Greg Moffatt, the recently appointed President of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. “The U.S. chemical industry posted a trade surplus of more than $30 billion in 2023. U.S. trade with Canada is very much in balance, if not completely in balance, so it’s highly concerning to us when tariffs come into play.”

One of the greatest concerns for Canadian chemical manufacturers is the possible threat that tariffs may pose to large chemical production facilities in Canada, such as Dow’s Path2Zero initiative. Projects such as these form the bedrock of industrial chemical supply to smaller suppliers and raw material traders.

“The reason why the relationship between the U.S. and Canada is so strong,” explains Moffat, “is we produce chlorine in British Columbia and Quebec, and it gets exported from British Columbia into the U.S. West — Washington, Oregon, California. From Quebec, it goes into the U.S. Northeast. And the reason why that takes place is because chlorine manufacturing in the U.S. is far away from those markets. And so, there are cost implications. You can't really pivot super quickly to construct a chlorine manufacturing facility to meet U.S. demand, so that's one specific example.”

Related articles: How Legislators are Failing to Stop the Use of PFAS or Chemical Industry Distribution at a Pivotal Moment

“In Canada, we're producing polyethylene, polypropylene rubbers, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen peroxide,” he adds. “There's just a broad spectrum of goods that are manufactured here, and they're sold into the U.S. market, and they're key contributors in the value chain. It would be very, very difficult, and it would take years for that capacity to be constructed.”

When tariffs are established, it impacts the output of these chemical plants but also puts in jeopardy plans for other chemical facilities which might be built in the future. Moreover, with chemical facilities taking years of planning and huge funding, supply chains cannot easily be restructured based on the four-year policy of a single administration.

For this reason the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has responded cautiously to the raising of barriers to trade, noting that Canada and Mexico are the US chemical industry’s largest trading partners.  

"The American chemical industry imports materials, many of which are unavailable in the United States, adding value and supporting other manufacturing supply chains domestically and abroad, through our exports,” stated the ACC in its official response. Specifically identifying that the US chemicals sector is a net exporter to Canada and Mexico.

As the Trump Administration’s trade policies continue to shape the global chemical industry, companies and trade organizations remain on edge, balancing the risks and opportunities that come with shifting tariffs. While the USMCA agreement does provide a framework for cooperation, concerns over supply chain disruptions and long-term infrastructure planning remain top of mind for industry leaders.

The North American chemicals sector and its raw material suppliers and export partners will need to prepare for strategic adjustments and hopefully a clearer understanding of the evolving trade landscape if they are to survive the remaining years of Trump’s time in office.

Part 2 of this analysis will explore how other trade bodies and chemical companies are adapting to these challenges and how they envisage the chemical industry’s future.

Photo credit: Portcalls Asia on Unsplash, Standret on Freepik, tawatchai07, & Freepik

For decades, the plastics industry has relied heavily on fossil fuels—not just for energy, but as a primary feedstock in the production process. As global efforts to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change intensify, the pressure on the industry to find sustainable alternatives is mounting.

Fortunately, emerging technologies and innovative materials are offering a glimpse into a future where plastics can be produced without fossil fuels. From bio-based feedstocks derived from plants and waste to advanced recycling methods that give new life to existing plastics, the industry has multiple pathways to explore.

Here is a brief overview of the most promising alternatives to crude oil as a plastic feedstock and the options coming online which will pave the way for a future that balances performance with environmental responsibility.

Net Zero Carbon Cracker

One of the largest projects going online to provide net zero feedstocks for the polymer industry is Dow’s Path2Zero project in Alberta, Canada. Currently only Phase 1 is under construction with a completion date set for 2027 when it will produce 1.3 million tonnes/year of ethylene and polyethylene. Phase 2 should be finished by 2029 to add a further 600,000 tonnes/year of capacity.

While this represents a massive increase in global low-carbon plastic capacity, Dow estimates that it will only represent less than 2% of predicted market demand. By 2030, Dow’s highest estimate for demand is in excess of 200 million tonnes per year, whereas the highest estimate for global output is only 75 million tonnes.

“That is the largest dislocation in supply and demand that I’ve seen in my 36-year career,” acknowledges Dow’s chief commercial officer, Dan Futter. “We’re starting to see the first signs of the market emerging… What we’re seeing is a market for something like 200 million tonnes of low carbon chemicals by 2030. If you compare that with what we would estimate the supply side to be, it is much smaller.”

E-Naphtha

A further new entrant to the market is Borealis (a leading producer of plastic and chemical products for industry) which last year announced an agreement with Infinium for a supply of e-naphtha produced from green hydrogen and captured waste CO2. The e-naphtha will then be used as a feedstock to a conventional naphtha cracker to produce ethylene and propylene, which in turn would be used to make PE and PP.

At present, Infinium produces e-naphtha at its Project Pathfinder plant in Texas, with commercial quantities being delivered to Borealis' facility in Porvoo, Finland which has ethylene capacity of 400,000 tonnes/year.

According to the ICIS Supply and Demand Database, “downstream capacities include 102,000 tonnes/year of high-density PE (HDPE), 150,000 tonnes of low-density PE (LDPE), 153,000 tonnes/year of linear low-density PE (LLDPE), and 220,000 tonnes/year of PP.”

Hopes are high for the project’s success, with notable demand growth across Europe for more sustainable plastics as well as low or zero emission polymers for consumer goods.

As a Borealis spokesperson noted, “We already see interest in the market from brand owners/OEMs that are leading in sustainability efforts and incorporating alternative feedstock in their products.”

Green Methanol

Another new company entering the market for low-emission plastics is Vioneo, a polymer producer owned by the global conglomerate AP Moller. With this backing, the company has invested €1.5 billion in a facility in Antwerp which will use an “innovative and proven technology” to produce fossil-free polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) at scale, using green methanol as a feedstock.”

While a new entrant to the market, the chemical business is headed by the experience of Jan Secher (former CEO of Clariant and Perstop) as well as Alex Hogan (former business director at INEOS Olefins & Polymers).

The project is planned to have capacity of around 300,000 tonnes/year of polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) when it starts commercial production in 2028. Although to get to this point will, according to the UK’s Chemical Industry Journal, require “front-end engineering and design (FEED) in Q4 2024 with a potential final investment decision (FID) in 2025.”

While the details behind the process are still not publicly clear, the company is promoting is as “pioneer fossil-free plastics production.”

“To make green methanol, Vioneo would use biogenic CO2 and presumably green hydrogen from an electrolyzer,” explains the Chemical Industry Journal. “Then presumably again, methanol-to-olefins (MTO) would yield propylene and ethylene, which would be polymerized to PP and PE.”

The company has stated that its technology ensures a completely segregated and traceable supply chain, preventing the mixing of non-certified and approved feedstocks. Renewable electricity will also be used to power production, lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions dramatically.

Vioneo claims that its PP and PE process will save up to 6kg of CO2 per kg of plastic and will be drop-in, virgin quality, ideal for applications in various industries, including domestic products, medical applications, packaging and automotive parts. However, the project is being launched with caveats, primarily that the €1.5 billion in funding will, according to Vioneo, “depend on broad stakeholder support, including updated regulatory frameworks and policies supporting a competitive environment for fossil-free plastics, as well as better conditions for the European chemicals industry such as lower energy costs.” Also adding that, “the success of the venture requires long-term offtake agreements of its customers.”

Low-Carbon Methanol

Celanese is another firm which is looking to utilise commercial volumes of low-carbon methanol and derivatives sourced from waste CO2.

As the Chemical Industry Journal reports, “In January 2024, the company announced it started running a CCU project at its Clear Lake, Texas, site as part of its Fairway Methanol joint venture with Mitsui & Co. The project is expected to capture 180,000 tonnes/year of CO2 industrial emissions and produce 130,000 tonnes/year of low-carbon methanol.”

Low-carbon methanol is a chemical raw material which can be used to make vinyl acetate monomer (VAM), vinyl acetate ethylene (VAE) emulsions, and other chemical products.

“We actively capture carbon off some of the major producers in Clear Lake, Texas, at our site and we take those CO2 emissions… and we recycle it back into the ATR (autothermal reformer),” explains the company’s CEO, Lori Ryerkerk. Noting that there is plenty of demand for polymers with an eco-friendly label. “We have customers like Amazon that want a lower carbon footprint product, and we are able to meet that customer need,” she adds.

The transition away from fossil fuel-based feedstocks in the plastics industry is both a technological and an economic challenge, but it is also an essential step toward a more sustainable future. Advances in bio-based alternatives, chemical and mechanical recycling, and carbon capture technologies demonstrate that viable pathways exist for reducing the chemical industry’s reliance on non-renewable resources. However, widespread adoption will require significant investment, policy support, and collaboration across industries to scale these solutions effectively.

As consumer demand for sustainable products grows and regulatory frameworks tighten, the incentive for the plastics industry to innovate has never been stronger. By embracing alternative feedstocks and circular economy principles, the chemical industry can not only reduce its environmental footprint but also secure its long-term viability. The shift away from fossil fuel dependency is no longer a question of if, but rather of how quickly and effectively the transition can be achieved.

“It’s a brave new world of decarbonized chemicals and plastics,” notes the Chemical Industry Journal. Adding that, “Meaningful quantities will take time to develop but if there is demand, the volumes will come.”

As Dow’s Dan Futter concludes, “This is going to be a fascinating period.”

Fascinating for us all.

Photo credit: Wikimedia, Power-eng, Wikimedia, & Picryl,

The world is sleeping on a land fill problem—the recycling of mattresses.

Not only are they big and bulky, but there are millions of them thrown away every year. According to Europur (the European Association of Flexible PU Foam Blocks Manufacturers), more than 30 million mattresses are discarded each year in the EU alone. This means that if stacked on top of each other the pile would be more than 60,000 kilometres high. That’s one quarter of the way to the moon.

That is a massive pile of waste not being tapped into, with the Mattress Recycling Council (MRC), an American non-profit organization that assists with the responsible disposal and recycling of mattresses, even stating that less than 10% of mattresses in the US are recycled. This is despite 75% of an innerspring mattress being reusable for its raw material.

The fact is that most mattresses end up in land fill or are burnt. Due to their bulk, they take up a lot of land fill space (a problem), and due to the plastics used to make them, they create a lot of carbon emissions and toxic fumes (also a problem).

What is needed is a decent recycling program and process to put the issue to bed.

Fortunately, compared to other household items, mattresses are not too difficult to recycle. They’re all approximately the same shape and made of the same few materials—fabric, foam, and metal, plus wood, if a box spring is in the mix.

“It’s fairly simple to separate the components,” explains MRC research director Mike Gallagher.

Some of the materials are easy to recycle. The metal springs, for example, can be melted down and are usually used to make construction materials, while any wood used can be mulched. Textiles are mechanically recycled into the fibres used to make carpets, padding, insulating material, or other household items. IKEA, for example, has a program for collecting old mattresses and using the raw materials to make sofas.

Related articles: What is AG CHEMI GROUP? or Chemical Industry Distribution at a Pivotal Moment

However, the hardest part to recycle are the polyurethane foams that make up the bulk of a mattress. “Polyurethanes are the most complex polymeric materials I can think of,” says Timothy Long, a polymer researcher at the Biodesign Center for Sustainable Macromolecular Materials and Manufacturing at Arizona State University.

According to Long, the biggest problem is that polyurethanes are thermosets. Unlike polyethylene or other thermoplastics that people are accustomed to throwing in their recycle bins, thermosets are strongly cross-linked polymers that cannot be melted down and simply re-moulded. Recyclers need to change polyurethane foam chemically in order to do nearly anything other than cut it up and glue the pieces together to make cushioning.

However, the chemical recycling choices for mattress foam are limited to breaking down the polymer into its monomers (polyol and isocyanate) or avoiding the complete depolymerization by modify the polyurethane into a new raw material. Both approaches are a major challenge for chemical companies hoping to tap into a low-cost chemical resource.

Dow, for one, is a chemical manufacturer which has been developing mattress-recycling technology for more than eight years. In 2017, the company established a facility in Semoy, France, for what Andrea Benvenuti, a Dow associate director of global R&D, calls the first industrial-scale process for the chemical recycling of mattress foam. Dow chose France because of its well-established waste mattress collection program. So now, every year since 2021, the plant has recycled the polyurethane from as many as 200,000 mattresses.

“Dow’s process uses acids and alcohols to break down polyurethanes into polyol and amine compounds,” explains the chemical industry journal CE&N. “The amines are not recovered, but the recycled polyol can be mixed with fresh polyols and isocyanates to make new polyurethanes for furniture and packaging. Ultimately, those polyurethanes will contain about 10% recycled content.”

Similar efforts to depolymerize mattress foam have also been launched in Europe by BASF and Covestro. While BASF's method only recycles the polyol, Covestro is able to recover an isocyanate precursor in addition to polyol.

“It’s hard enough to efficiently recover the polyol and isocyanate components from a single polyurethane,” says organic chemist Troels Skrydstrup of Aarhus University. Skrydstrup is a member of a group of researchers working with Danish business partners, such as the mattress manufacturer Tempur, to develop more effective chemical recycling methods for polyurethane.

However, making the issue even more complex, is the fact that there are many different types of polyurethane. There are even other chemical products, such as flame retardants, dyes, and surfactants, present in mattresses which also need to be separated. “You can’t just go to a dumpster and take all the mattresses and think you can recycle them in the same waste stream into pure monomers,” notes Skrydstrup.

Clearly the challenge of recycling polyurethane from waste mattresses is complex, but at the same time it is not insurmountable. The chemical industry is making significant progress in developing innovative solutions, from advanced chemical recycling methods to more sustainable product designs aimed at closing the loop.

While technical and economic hurdles remain—such as scaling up processes, improving material recovery rates, and addressing logistical barriers—collaborative efforts between industry leaders, research institutions, and policymakers offer a promising path forward. With continued investment in technology and supportive regulatory frameworks, the chemical industry is poised to make mattress recycling a scalable and sustainable reality, reducing landfill waste, and contributing to a circular economy.

Hopefully then, the loop can be closed for raw materials from waste mattresses.

Photo credit: Rawpixel, Wikimedia, Flickr, Trustedreviews, Generate & Flickr

Imagine a chemical so resilient that it doesn’t break down in the environment, stays in your body for years, and is linked to serious health problems like cancer, liver damage, and immune system disruption.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of synthetic chemicals that have been widely used since the mid-20th century in various industries. They are popular in manufacturing due to their unique properties. However, growing evidence has revealed significant health and environmental risks associated with PFAS exposure, prompting regulatory bodies to take action.

But despite all the evidence, environmentalists, lawmakers, and chemical manufacturers are finding this seemingly simple task very difficult to legislate on.

What Are PFAS Chemicals?

PFAS is a collective term for thousands of synthetic chemicals that share a common characteristic: a chain of carbon atoms bonded to fluorine atoms, which creates a strong and stable molecular structure. This structure is responsible for their water- and oil-repellent properties. PFAS have been used in a wide range of products, from non-stick cookware and waterproof clothing to firefighting foam and food packaging.

Yet while PFAS have many uses, they also have many drawbacks. Most notable of these is that they do not easily break down in either the environment or the human body. This has left them with the alternative name of ‘forever chemicals,’ with researchers even finding that they accumulate in soil, water, and living organisms.

While PFAS are valuable in industrial and consumer products, they come with serious health and environmental risks. Studies have linked PFAS exposure to a variety of health problems, including cancer (particularly kidney and testicular cancers), liver damage, immune system suppression, fertility problems, and developmental issues in children.

In response, countries are taking steps to regulate PFAS. However, these efforts have been fragmented, with regulations focused on specific chemicals rather than a comprehensive ban on the entire class.

In the European Union, for example, PFAS are subject to regulation under the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals) framework. Some PFAS compounds, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), have therefore been banned or severely restricted in certain applications. The EU has also begun investigating the possibility of restricting all PFAS as a group, recognizing that the persistence and toxicity of these chemicals poses a global problem. However, due to the large number of PFAS variants, implementing a ban on the entire class remains a complex task.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also taken steps to regulate PFAS. The EPA has set drinking water standards for certain PFAS compounds and is working to develop further regulations. However, currently, only six PFAS are regulated by the federal government. As a recent Newsweek report notes, “Those requirements were only rolled out last year when former President Joe Biden ordered municipal water systems to remove six synthetic chemicals that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans.”

“We are one huge step closer to finally shutting off the tap on forever chemicals once and for all,” announced Michael Reagan, who was head of the EPA Administration when the legislation was passed.

However, environmentalists argue that stopping these chemicals is just not that easy.

“There's no guarantee that all other PFAS will be filtered out,” explains Jamie DeWitt, the director of Oregon State University's Environmental Health Sciences Center. But why is this?

The Problem of Banning PFAS Individually

One of the key challenges in regulating PFAS is that the chemical industry has produced thousands of different variants. While individual chemicals like PFOA and PFOS have been targeted for bans or restrictions, new PFAS chemicals are continuously being developed to replace the banned substances. This means that regulatory agencies must individually evaluate and ban each variant, creating a cumbersome and slow process.

“The problem is that the industry keeps inventing new ones,” says Erik Olson, a senior strategic director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Every time you get rid of an old one, or you control an old one, a bunch of new ones are coming at you.”

This is because, like the EU, the US has focused on banning individual substances rather than addressing the entire class of chemicals. This piecemeal approach has left significant gaps in the regulation of PFAS, allowing new varieties of these chemicals to enter the market without adequate oversight. Moreover, many PFAS compounds are similar in structure but may have slightly different properties, which complicates the task of regulation.

“It's like playing whack-a-mole,” explains Olson.

The absence of a blanket ban on all PFAS compounds allows the chemical industry to continue producing substances that share many of the dangerous characteristics of their predecessors.

“There are hundreds [of PFAS] that are not regulated, and there's no stoppers on industries from creating new ones,” says Ronnie Levin, an instructor in Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who is well known for her work in removing lead from US drinking water. “These are all manufactured [chemicals], so it's easier to tweak it, because they made it up.”

It is this slow, regulatory response, to a fast-paced chemical industry which is infuriating environmentalists and health watchdogs.

PFAS chemicals have provided valuable benefits to various industries, but their persistence and toxicity have led to significant health and environmental risks.

While progress is being made to limit PFAS exposure, the future of these chemicals depends on finding safe alternatives and developing effective clean-up strategies. Until then, it seems that legislation will always be playing ‘catch-up’ with the new products that the chemical industry produces.

“The only way to really control this is by regulating PFAS as a class,” concludes Olson. “[Until then] I call it the toxic treadmill because that's kind of what we're running on.”

Photo credit: Freepik, Freepik, Wikimedia, Hit-BG, & Highlander

Scientists have unlocked a ground-breaking solution for sustainable agriculture—turning human or animal urine into an eco-friendly fertilizer feedstock.

It is a discovery which could revolutionize how we recycle nutrients, reducing reliance on synthetic fertilizers while addressing waste management challenges. By converting liquid urea into a retrievable solid peroxide derivative, this innovative process promises greener, circular farming practices. Moreover, such is the purity of the chemicals produced, they could even be used as raw materials for the manufacture of disinfectants or batteries.

While the concept of using urine as a fertilizer feedstock is not new, the industrial process to convert it into a valuable raw material involves many steps and is expensive due to the large amounts of energy needed. Even then, conventional production of urea is more common as using urine fails to produce a high-purity chemical product due to limitations in separation selectivity.

The breakthrough in fertilizer feedstock technology was made by Prof. Xinjian Shi at Henan University, China, and his colleagues from Stanford University, and is described by the journal Chemistry World as, “an efficient electrocatalytic technique that can turn waste urine into a valuable supply of urea without complex extraction or purification steps.” Noting that, “The team were able to harness a specific characteristic of urea, namely its ability to combine with hydrogen and oxygen to form percarbamide, a peroxide.”

Carbon-based materials have long been employed as catalysts in redox reactions, and because they are abundant and inexpensive, Shi and his team investigated graphite carbon catalysts to power the electrochemical process. These catalysts allow the addition of oxygen and hydrogen to urea by reducing oxygen, making them perfect for converting urea into percarbamide.

“Percarbamide is more easily precipitated from liquid than urea, enabling in situ solid–liquid separation and extraction,” explains Shi. The study also notes that urea is the only component of urine that can undergo this procedure. “This unique property naturally ensures the purity of the obtained product. At the same time, the electrochemical method requires very mild conditions, with lower energy consumption and costs.”

Laboratory testing demonstrated that there were two probable electrochemical routes for turning urea into percarbamide. The first used the standard oxygen reduction mechanism, with oxygen undergoing a two-electron reduction and hydrogenation to form hydrogen peroxide. This hydrogen peroxide subsequently produced strong hydrogen bonds with urea, producing percarbamide crystals.

The second process involved oxygen undergoing a one-electron reduction and hydrogenation to form hydroperoxide, which reacted with urea to make an intermediate that could then be reduced and hydrogenated to produce percarbamide crystals.

The study has now been published in the journal Nature, where the efficiency of the process is noted. “The optimized process achieves near 100% purity in percarbamide precipitation from both human and mammalian urine,” it states. Adding that, “The collected percarbamide demonstrates remarkable potential for applications in various domains. This approach establishes a closed-loop system for production, utilization and recovery, offering a scalable solution for large-scale urine treatment with important economic and environmental value.”

Significantly, such is the efficiency of the process, that, “The team calculated that daily production of 1 tonne of percarbamide would require only 100m2 of land and the urine from about 6400 houses or a farm of 3800 cows.”

The downside is in how to collect urine on an industrial scale such that it could be used for the wholesale production of fertilizer.

“One option,” according to Shi, “is to develop small-scale devices for use within households.” Although it is unclear if the economic rewards for producing percarbamide domestically would be sufficient motivation for homeowners to install the necessary equipment.

A further possibility would be to establish dedicated urine collection facilities in communities or farms.

“In this case, urine and faeces would be separated at the user level and then transported through specialised pipelines to centralised treatment and stabilisation pools,” notes Shi.

Related articles: Fertilizer Feedstock Can Be Cheaper & Greener If Made Underground or Czech Researchers Find Use for Chicken Feathers as Fertiliser Feedstock

As both approaches to collecting urine are expensive and/or require mass participation from livestock farmers or the general public, it seems unlikely that urine will quickly be adopted as a fertilizer feedstock any time soon.

However, the environmental advantages of transforming urine into an industrial feedstock should not be ignored. Turning human waste into a valuable resource that feeds our crops, which in turn feed us is an incredible closed-loop process. An innovation which not only reduces environmental impact but also promotes a sustainable future where waste is minimized, resources are reused, and the basic cycle of nature is restored.

Photo credit: drobotdean, jcomp, Freepik, & Flickr