A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR TRANSFORMING
Committee on a Research Agenda for a New Era in Separation Science
Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology
Division on Earth and Life Studies
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-SC0018052), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (60NANB18D019), and the National Science Foundation (NARM NSF EFMA-1823190). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-49170-9
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-49170-3
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25421
Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Research Agenda for Transforming Separation Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25421.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the NationalAcademies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR A NEW ERA IN SEPARATION SCIENCE
JOAN F. BRENNECKE (Chair), University of Texas at Austin
JARED L. ANDERSON, Iowa State University
GEORGES BELFORT, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
AURORA CLARK, Washington State University
BRIAN KOLTHAMMER, Dow Chemical Company (retired)
BRUCE MOYER, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
SUSAN OLESIK, Ohio State University
KEVIN M. ROSSO, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
MARK B. SHIFLETT, University of Kansas
DAVID SHOLL, Georgia Institute of Technology
ZACHARY P. SMITH, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
LYNDA SODERHOLM, Argonne National Laboratory
MICHAEL TSAPATSIS, Johns Hopkins University
MARY J. WIRTH, Purdue University
CAMLY TRAN, Study Director (through April 2019)
ELLEN K. MANTUS, Scholar
JESSICA WOLFMAN, Senior Program Assistant
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
BOARD ON CHEMICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
DAVID BEM, PPG Industries
JOAN F. BRENNECKE, NAE, University of Texas at Austin
GERARD BAILLELY, Procter and Gamble
MARK BARTEAU, NAE, Texas A&M University
DAVID B. BERKOWITZ, University of Nebraska
MICHELLE V. BUCHANAN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
JENNIFER SINCLAIR CURTIS, University of California, Davis
SAMUEL H. GELLMAN, NAS, University of Wisconsin–Madison
SHARON C. GLOTZER, NAS, NAE, University of Michigan
KAREN I. GOLDBERG, NAS, University of Pennsylvania
MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories (retired)
ALAN D. PALKOWITZ, Eli Lilly and Company
JOSEPH B. POWELL, Shell
PETER J. ROSSKY, NAS, Rice University
RICHMOND SARPONG, University of California, Berkeley
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff
JEREMY MATHIS, Board Director
TERESA FRYBERGER, Board Director (through August 2018)
ELLEN K. MANTUS, Scholar
MARILEE SHELTON-DAVENPORT, Senior Program Officer
CAMLY TRAN, Senior Program Officer (through April 2019)
JESSICA WOLFMAN, Research Assistant
NICHOLAS ROGERS, Financial Associate
Chemical separations are critical to almost every aspect of our daily lives, from the energy we use to the medications we take. Moreover, efficient separations are needed to ensure U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, primarily because of the high energy use of current commercial separation processes; some estimates attribute 10–15% of the total energy used in the United States to chemical separations. Nonetheless, separations are often overlooked and underappreciated. Separations make the goods and services that improve our standard of living and quality of life possible. A dramatic example of how separation science contributes to the greater good is the development and commercialization of reverse-osmosis membranes for water desalination. Hundreds of millions of people now have ready access to potable water because of step-change advances in separation technology.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on a Research Agenda for a New Era in Separation Science assessed the state of separation science, focusing on advances since the publication of the 1987 National Academies report Separation and Purification: Critical Needs and Opportunities, by a committee chaired by C. Judson King. Although much progress has been made, some of the critical needs from a generation ago remain. In addition, new challenges have presented themselves as a result of improved detection limits, advances in medicine, and new emphasis on sustainability and environmental stewardship. Fortunately, a wealth of new experimental techniques, along with molecular modeling and simulation, and the ability to harness data-science techniques, provide separation scientists with the opportunity to make great advances in the design and development of revolutionary new materials for separation systems, as detailed in the research agenda described herein.
It is interesting that the present committee—made up of chemists, chemical engineers, and representatives of academe, national laboratories, and industry—discovered that the vision presented by King (Separation Processes, 2nd ed., 1980, McGraw-Hill) of unification of the general principles of separation science has not yet been achieved. Chemists and chemical engineers engaging in separation science and technology do not even speak a common language. The committee emphasizes that collaboration and communication among separation scientists and development of excitement among young researchers are key to transforming separation science.
I thank the committee members and the National Academies staff for their hard work and dedication in all the committee activities and in the preparation of this report. They made this a tremendously stimulating, educational, and enjoyable experience. Finally, I thank the reviewers for their extremely thoughtful and helpful comments, which have improved the content and presentation of this report.
Joan F. Brennecke, Chair
Committee on a Research Agenda
for a New Era in Separation Science
This page intentionally left blank.
The completion of this study would not have been successful without the assistance of many individuals and organizations. The committee thanks especially the following for their contributions.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) sponsored the study and provided valuable information on their programs involving separation science. The committee thanks especially Bruce Garrett, director of the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences Division in the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES), as well as Philip Wilk and Raul Miranda (BES) who served as the DOE liaison to the committee and was effective in responding to its requests for information. The committee also thanks Michelle Bushey (NSF Chemical Measurement and Imaging), Christy Payne (NSF Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems Division), and Vince Shen (NIST) for their active engagement and input throughout the study process.
Speakers and invited participants at the committee’s data-gathering meetings were Heather C. Allen, Ohio State University; Mark R. Antonio, Argonne National Laboratory; Jim Bielenberg, RAPID Manufacturing Institute; Craig Brown, NIST; Jeff Chalmers, Ohio State University; Jaehun Chun, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; David Constable, American Chemical Society; Radu Custelcean, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Amar Flood, Indiana University; Benny Freeman, The University of Texas at Austin; Robert Giraud, Chemours; T. Alan Hatton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Matthew Hill, Monash University; Philip Jessop, Queens University; William Koros, Georgia Institute of Technology; Heather J. Kulik, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Christy Landes, Rice University; Jeffrey Long, University of California, Berkeley; Jeffrey Morris, City College of New York; Zoltan Nagy, Purdue University; Andrew Peterson, Brown University; Marek Pruski, Iowa State University; Jeffrey Reimer, University of California, Berkeley; Roger Rousseau, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; J. Ilja Siepmann, University of Minnesota; Susan Sinnott, Pennsylvania State University; G. Brian Stephenson, Argonne National Laboratory; Greg Swift, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Gregory Voth, University of Chicago; Kim Williams, Colorado School of Mines; and Kelly Zhang, Genentech.
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets institutional standards of quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Michael Ladisch, Purdue University, and Marin Sherwin (retired), W.R. Grace & Co. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
This page intentionally left blank.
BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES
3-1 An example of an integrated approach that relies on large-scale process synthesis, computation methods, accurate structure–property relations that are based on simulations and in situ and operando characterization
5-3 Examples of multiple interactions that can be imparted to chromatographic stationary phases, including poly(ionic liquid) grafted materials, dendritic polymer-modified silica, and glutathione-based zwitterionic phases
5-7 Illustrations of confinement for flat rigid confining interfaces in which the interfacial regions are (A) weakly interacting thereby preserving essentially bulk-like properties in the central region and (B) strongly interacting thereby imparting new net properties to the confined phase
C-2 Example of combining synchrotron x-ray scattering techniques, which can now provide information on the time-averaged three-dimensional atomic structure at solid–liquid interfaces (left), with ab initio molecular dynamics simulations of time-dependent processes such as water exchange (right), to produce a comprehensive atomic-structure model for interfaces (middle)
C-3 Left, an electron-density profile (red line) obtained by using x-ray reflectivity data from an interface of water and dodecane+extractant, in conjunction with molecular dynamics simulations to construct a model of the ordered arrangement of amphiphilic DHDP molecules