11 Toward Industrialization of Ionic Liquids
275
chemical regulations, like REACH in Europe and TSCA in the USA, make our world
safer [49, 50]; however, this safety comes at a price. For example, the typical REACH
direct costs required to register new chemicals in the 1–10 metric tons per year (tpy)
is at least 66,000 US dollars, increases to 330,000 US dollars when stepping up to the
10–100 tpy range, and at least another 1,100,000 US dollars for 100–1000 tpy. There
are other significant costs that can arise from higher safety standards (e.g., packaging,
transport, and storage), not only for ionic liquids, but for all new chemicals. These
costs directly affect profit margins, especially for smaller companies.
Slightly more than the half of the participants agree that “there is no reliable supply
of ionic liquids on the ton (or greater) scale” (statement 4). Opinions on this topic
are well-distributed: 22% mostly or totally agree and 35% totally or mostly disagree.
In reality, a reliable supply of ionic liquids at any commercial scale is available
today. As with any other chemical on the market, when a quote is requested, lead
times and possible regulatory affairs are considered, and delivery is guaranteed by
a couple of established medium-sized manufacturers, like IoLiTec or proionic. The
latter produce at two- to three-digit ton scale per year, and big players, like BASF,
Evonik, or Merck, will increase their activities again as soon as demand emerges for
significantly larger volumes.
The statement “The IPR landscape got very complicated in the last decades”
(statement 5) resulted in an equal distribution of responses. Undoubtedly, there is
a steadily increasing number of patent applications in the world [51] with average
annual growth rates between 4 and 5% and reaching 25% in China. In the early days
of the “ionic liquid gold rush,” a large number of patent applications with broad
claims and questionable quality emerged. This led to decreased activity in the field.
Many of these patent applications took a long time before they were dropped, but
some are still active. This problem will soon solve itself due to patent expiration. In
the meantime, it seems to the author that patent office reviewers have become more
critical in their evaluation of ionic liquid patents, thus forcing applicants to be more
specific in their claims.
“Is there low willingness of large, especially stock-listed enterprises to take risks”
(statement 6)? More than 90% of the participants agree with this statement and
almost 75% mostly to totally agree, which aligns with the personal experience of
the author. This is clearly the result of a shareholder-value economy driven by large
corporations, whereby it is difficult to enforce risky strategic decisions against the
will of the shareholders. Therefore, it is expected that major future breakthroughs in
the field of ionic liquids will come from small companies.
Almost 60% of the participants disagree that “material compatibility with ionic
liquids is challenging” (statement 7), but 40% are not completely convinced. Material compatibility of new compounds has always been a challenge for the chemical
industry; for example, general costs of corrosion are 3–4% of the GDP of industrialized countries per year, which equals about 2.5 trillion US dollars globally [52]. Ionic
liquids represent a special case; they are a large class of new liquid salts, with very
different chemistries than molecular solvents and salt solutions. In this respect, all
direct corrosion comparisons between ionic liquids and inorganic salts fall short and
are not meaningful at all. There exists a practically endless number of combinations
275
chemical regulations, like REACH in Europe and TSCA in the USA, make our world
safer [49, 50]; however, this safety comes at a price. For example, the typical REACH
direct costs required to register new chemicals in the 1–10 metric tons per year (tpy)
is at least 66,000 US dollars, increases to 330,000 US dollars when stepping up to the
10–100 tpy range, and at least another 1,100,000 US dollars for 100–1000 tpy. There
are other significant costs that can arise from higher safety standards (e.g., packaging,
transport, and storage), not only for ionic liquids, but for all new chemicals. These
costs directly affect profit margins, especially for smaller companies.
Slightly more than the half of the participants agree that “there is no reliable supply
of ionic liquids on the ton (or greater) scale” (statement 4). Opinions on this topic
are well-distributed: 22% mostly or totally agree and 35% totally or mostly disagree.
In reality, a reliable supply of ionic liquids at any commercial scale is available
today. As with any other chemical on the market, when a quote is requested, lead
times and possible regulatory affairs are considered, and delivery is guaranteed by
a couple of established medium-sized manufacturers, like IoLiTec or proionic. The
latter produce at two- to three-digit ton scale per year, and big players, like BASF,
Evonik, or Merck, will increase their activities again as soon as demand emerges for
significantly larger volumes.
The statement “The IPR landscape got very complicated in the last decades”
(statement 5) resulted in an equal distribution of responses. Undoubtedly, there is
a steadily increasing number of patent applications in the world [51] with average
annual growth rates between 4 and 5% and reaching 25% in China. In the early days
of the “ionic liquid gold rush,” a large number of patent applications with broad
claims and questionable quality emerged. This led to decreased activity in the field.
Many of these patent applications took a long time before they were dropped, but
some are still active. This problem will soon solve itself due to patent expiration. In
the meantime, it seems to the author that patent office reviewers have become more
critical in their evaluation of ionic liquid patents, thus forcing applicants to be more
specific in their claims.
“Is there low willingness of large, especially stock-listed enterprises to take risks”
(statement 6)? More than 90% of the participants agree with this statement and
almost 75% mostly to totally agree, which aligns with the personal experience of
the author. This is clearly the result of a shareholder-value economy driven by large
corporations, whereby it is difficult to enforce risky strategic decisions against the
will of the shareholders. Therefore, it is expected that major future breakthroughs in
the field of ionic liquids will come from small companies.
Almost 60% of the participants disagree that “material compatibility with ionic
liquids is challenging” (statement 7), but 40% are not completely convinced. Material compatibility of new compounds has always been a challenge for the chemical
industry; for example, general costs of corrosion are 3–4% of the GDP of industrialized countries per year, which equals about 2.5 trillion US dollars globally [52]. Ionic
liquids represent a special case; they are a large class of new liquid salts, with very
different chemistries than molecular solvents and salt solutions. In this respect, all
direct corrosion comparisons between ionic liquids and inorganic salts fall short and
are not meaningful at all. There exists a practically endless number of combinations