Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Chemistry => Topic started by: theThinker on 11/03/2023 23:59:35
-
Answer seems Yes. Synthesis without organic inputs.
Nature Magazine, 1887.
https://www.nature.com/articles/037007b0
"ANOTHER important acquisition to our store of knowledge has recently been made. Glucose, commonly called grape-sugar, has been artificially prepared by Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg."
What is the latest development. Is this synthetic glucose considered a "food", digestible.
-
Nature Magazine, 1887.
https://www.nature.com/articles/037007b0
"ANOTHER important acquisition to our store of knowledge has recently been made. Glucose, commonly called grape-sugar, has been artificially prepared by Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg."
"The substance employed as the base of operations was acrolein,CH 2 =CH CHO (C3H4O), the aldehyde derived by oxidation of ally alcohol."
Somehow, the base substance to synthesize glucose must come from a source that traces back to an organic material. In this case, acrolein is produced industrially from propene which is from hydrocarbon (plant origin).
I would prefer a glucose synthesis that starts without materials that traces to plant/animal origins - inorganic materials.
-
A wide variety of organic chemicals have been discovered in space, presumably formed in dust clouds from inorganic sources.
Glucose (C6H12O6) is a fairly complex molecule; to date detection has not been reported in space, but a number of other molecules with 6 or more carbons have been discovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Ten_or_more_atoms_(21) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Ten_or_more_atoms_(21))
-
A wide variety of organic chemicals have been discovered in space, presumably formed in dust clouds from inorganic sources.
Glucose (C6H12O6) is a fairly complex molecule; to date detection has not been reported in space, but a number of other molecules with 6 or more carbons have been discovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Ten_or_more_atoms_(21) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Ten_or_more_atoms_(21))
I specify glucose as it is a basic food - providing calories in metabolism. Currently all food (including sugars) are harvested from plants or from animals.
My main question is that, despite our advanced state in science and technology, we are still unable to synthesize genuine food from the basic fundamental elements. To synthesize glucose from C,H, O, we need energy input (endorthermic). It seems we are not able to "defeat" the creator of living things.
-
The obvious answer is that plants make glucose from CO2 and water.
Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.
You can use calcium carbide (made by reaction of the elements if you like) and water to make acetylene.
On a good day you can then get this reaction to make acrolein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroformylation
Or you can react acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde is made from ethylene by addition of water catalytically (I think they use a mercury salt as the catalyst).
You can get ethylene by partial hydrogenation of acetylene (see above) and you can get formaldehyde by hydrolysis of dichloromethane which you can et by chlorination of methane which you can (just about) get by the direct reaction of carbon and hydrogen.
It's not pretty, but it's possible (and there are probably better ways)
I think magnesium carbide gives an interesting set of hydrocarbons (including propyne) on reaction with water; that might be worth looking into if you are looking for acrolein.
-
.
It seems we are not able to "defeat" the creator of living things.
More to the point, you can't defeat the laws of physics.
If you want to use glucose (or anything else) as a source of energy, you have to use more energy in its synthesis than you will get out from its combustion. The great thing about plants is that they synthesise all the food that animals need from animal waste (principally CO2) and sunlight.
-
we are still unable to synthesize genuine food from the basic fundamental elements.
Yes we can.
So, you are basing your whole argument on a mistake.
To synthesize glucose from C,H, O, we need energy input (endorthermic).
Actually, if we had enough C, H and O that would be fine.
You can burn C or H for energy.
Again, you really don't seem to have thought this through.
-
The obvious answer is that plants make glucose from CO2 and water.
Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.
You can use calcium carbide (made by reaction of the elements if you like) and water to make acetylene.
On a good day you can then get this reaction to make acrolein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroformylation
I have not found from google a definite answer if acrolein can be synthesized in the laboratory from acetylene.
Please give a simple link as I know nothing about chemistry.
Question: Show me a DEFINITE link that acrolein may be synthesized from acetylene. Tell if acrolein may be synthesized where the inputs do not come from organic sources (eg. hydrocarbon, crude oil,...)
-
...
Or you can react acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde is made from ethylene by addition of water catalytically (I think they use a mercury salt as the catalyst).
You can get ethylene by partial hydrogenation of acetylene (see above) and you can get formaldehyde by hydrolysis of dichloromethane which you can et by chlorination of methane which you can (just about) get by the direct reaction of carbon and hydrogen.
It's not pretty, but it's possible (and there are probably better ways)
I think magnesium carbide gives an interesting set of hydrocarbons (including propyne) on reaction with water; that might be worth looking into if you are looking for acrolein.
Google search gives no definite answer if acetaldehyde and formaldehyde may react to give acrolein.
-
. It seems we are not able to "defeat" the creator of living things.
More to the point, you can't defeat the laws of physics.
If you want to use glucose (or anything else) as a source of energy, you have to use more energy in its synthesis than you will get out from its combustion. The great thing about plants is that they synthesise all the food that animals need from animal waste (principally CO2) and sunlight.
Living things have an element that is beyond the reach of physical laws of nature.
Of course, there are peop[le who believe that, one day, we may be able to create living things from inanimate materials. I don't.
-
Living things have an element that is beyond the reach of physical laws of nature.
The evidence says otherwise.
Google search gives no definite answer if acetaldehyde and formaldehyde may react to give acrolein.
Then it's just as well you can ask a chemist, isn't it?
However, I'm a little puzzled you you couldn't get Google to confirm what's said on the WIKI page about acrolein.
"The original industrial route to acrolein, developed by Degussa, involves condensation of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde:
HCHO + CH3CHO → CH2=CHCHO + H2O"
Show me a DEFINITE link
OK, you want a link to a page where a competent, qualified chemist tells you that it can be done?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86170.msg700727#msg700727
-
Seriously, if you google "acetaldehyde and formaldehyde react to give acrolein" you get articles telling you that they do.
Why is it that you don't believe facts, but you do believe fantasies like "Living things have an element that is beyond the reach of physical laws of nature."?
-
The obvious answer is that plants make glucose from CO2 and water.
Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.
You can use calcium carbide (made by reaction of the elements if you like) and water to make acetylene.
On a good day you can then get this reaction to make acrolein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroformylation
Or you can react acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde is made from ethylene by addition of water catalytically (I think they use a mercury salt as the catalyst).
You can get ethylene by partial hydrogenation of acetylene (see above) and you can get formaldehyde by hydrolysis of dichloromethane which you can et by chlorination of methane which you can (just about) get by the direct reaction of carbon and hydrogen.
It's not pretty, but it's possible (and there are probably better ways)
I think magnesium carbide gives an interesting set of hydrocarbons (including propyne) on reaction with water; that might be worth looking into if you are looking for acrolein.
OK ! My bad. I missed the acetaldehyde and formaldehyde to acrolein part in the wiki.
I have now confirmed the correctness of your post. Now if we accept the 1887 article of Nature how Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg synthesized glucose from acrolein, then it would be true that we are able to synthesize food (glucose) from inorganic starting compounds. This would be a great surprise to me as we have successfully mimic photosynthesis in plants - a living thing.
I have a question. When I search google with : "laboratory" "synthesis" "glucose", why is that the only relevant link I get is still the 1887 article in Nature. Why is there not any other more recent articles about lab synthesis of glucose?
-
the Wiki page on glucose has a lot of information about glucose, but there is not a single reference on how glucose may be synthesized in the laboratory.
Why? Is it of no interest or importance at all?
-
This would be a great surprise to me
That just confirms that you didn't know what you were talking about when you started.
I have now confirmed the correctness of your post.
What gave you the idea that you might need to?
Are you calling me a liar?
This would be a great surprise to me as we have successfully mimic photosynthesis in plants - a living thing.
It isn't exactly news.
You can actually make sugars from just formaldehyde.
That observation led to this outdated but still interesting idea.
https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/24/4/1210/20605/Studies-in-photosynthesisI-The-formaldehyde
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12174538.pdf
Now if we accept the 1887 article of Nature how Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg synthesized glucose from acrolein,
Why have you labelled an observation as something that you might not accept?
Why is there not any other more recent articles about lab synthesis of glucose?
Because glucose is very cheap.
Why would I make it in a lab when I can buy it at the grocery store?
I presume you didn't understand this bit of what I posted earlier
Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.
Once you have synthesised glucose you have proved that you know what its structure is.
After that there is normally no point in making it in the lab.
There is an exception- if I want radioactively or isotopically labelled glucose, I can't pick it up at the supermarket.
And , of course, there are papers about that
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01649a055
But you don't understand enough about the subject to know what to look for.
-
Of course, there are peop[le who believe that, one day, we may be able to create living things from inanimate materials.
It would be difficult and pointless, but it has already happened without human or divine intervention so it's clearly not impossible.
-
the Wiki page on glucose has a lot of information about glucose, but there is not a single reference on how glucose may be synthesized in the laboratory.
Why? Is it of no interest or importance at all?
Indeed. It's cheap and plentiful from natural sources.
I think you are a bit hung up on the word "organic". There's nothing magical about organic chemistry: it just happens that the electronic structure of the carbon atom lends itself to forming the skeleton of very large molecules with complex shapes.
-
This would be a great surprise to me
That just confirms that you didn't know what you were talking about when you started.
If I knew the answers, I would not have posted here to ask for clarifications.
The rest of your comments in this message here are not worthy of any reply from me.
I have now confirmed the correctness of your post.
What gave you the idea that you might need to?
Are you calling me a liar?
This would be a great surprise to me as we have successfully mimic photosynthesis in plants - a living thing.
It isn't exactly news.
You can actually make sugars from just formaldehyde.
That observation led to this outdated but still interesting idea.
https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/24/4/1210/20605/Studies-in-photosynthesisI-The-formaldehyde
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12174538.pdf
Now if we accept the 1887 article of Nature how Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg synthesized glucose from acrolein,
Why have you labelled an observation as something that you might not accept?
Why is there not any other more recent articles about lab synthesis of glucose?
Because glucose is very cheap.
Why would I make it in a lab when I can buy it at the grocery store?
I presume you didn't understand this bit of what I posted earlier
Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.
Once you have synthesised glucose you have proved that you know what its structure is.
After that there is normally no point in making it in the lab.
There is an exception- if I want radioactively or isotopically labelled glucose, I can't pick it up at the supermarket.
And , of course, there are papers about that
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01649a055
But you don't understand enough about the subject to know what to look for.
[/quote]
-
create
Of course, there are peop[le who believe that, one day, we may be able to create living things from inanimate materials.
It would be difficult and pointless, but it has already happened without human or divine intervention so it's clearly not impossible.
It may be pointless to you. Just saying it has already happended is no answer.
-
the Wiki page on glucose has a lot of information about glucose, but there is not a single reference on how glucose may be synthesized in the laboratory.
Why? Is it of no interest or importance at all?
Indeed. It's cheap and plentiful from natural sources.
I think you are a bit hung up on the word "organic". There's nothing magical about organic chemistry: it just happens that the electronic structure of the carbon atom lends itself to forming the skeleton of very large molecules with complex shapes.
I have read there are different interpretations about organic versus inorganic.
We all know ALL (?) of our current food sources comes plants and animals. The point of my original question was whether it is possible to synthesize food - mainly carbohydrates, sugar - from pure C, H, and O.
My first candidate was of course glucose, being the simplest of food. The question has nothing to do with economic feasibility, but an academic question. The synthesis of glucose from the Nature article started from acrolein and I had to determine if acrolein had its origin from plants. I know glucose is "synthesized" commercially from starch.
-
Of course, there are peop[le who believe that, one day, we may be able to create living things from inanimate materials.
It would be difficult and pointless, but it has already happened without human or divine intervention so it's clearly not impossible.
Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch'
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/index.html
"(CNN) -- Genetics pioneer J. Craig Venter announced Thursday that he and his team have created artificial life for the first time. "
CNN: Did you create new life?
Venter: We created a new cell. It's alive. But we didn't create life from scratch.
We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.
I don't know how to interpret "We created ... out of a living cell."
But in the Bible, we were told Adam and Eve were created out of clay :D
-
The question has nothing to do with economic feasibility, but an academic question.
And you answered it in your opening post.
Glucose, commonly called grape-sugar, has been artificially prepared
My first candidate was of course glucose, being the simplest of food.
Not really.
Ethanol, for example, is simpler and is a fine food for some bacteria.
It is made industrially from petroleum, but could be made simply enough from the elements.
Fermentation of dead plants is obviously easier.
-
There is apparently quite a lot of Ethanol in molecular dust clouds...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Nine_atoms_(10) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Nine_atoms_(10))
-
I have read there are different interpretations about organic versus inorganic.
but the one thing organic materials all have in common is a carbon chain skeleton.
-
The question has nothing to do with economic feasibility, but an academic question.
And you answered it in your opening post.
Glucose, commonly called grape-sugar, has been artificially prepared
My first candidate was of course glucose, being the simplest of food.
Not really.
Ethanol, for example, is simpler and is a fine food for some bacteria.
It is made industrially from petroleum, but could be made simply enough from the elements.
Fermentation of dead plants is obviously easier.
I have often benefited by posting in forums and asking for clarifications, but we cannot just swallow whatever is given to us. We have to question when there is reason to.
I could easily accept your pointing out that ethanol is food for some bacteria and that ethanol could easily be synthesized - this is not as complicated as the case of acrolein. I think I am satisfied with this ethanol case though it is only food for bacteria and not human; it is still food for living things.
On further thoughts, it might not be surprising that we could synthesize food (carbohydrates, sugar) from C,H, O. Our science and technology have done done what to me are actually miracles - planes which fly, transplanting hearts, etc... Still we probably cannot compete with nature's design that we get most of our food from plants.
Incidentally, is there one single common food item today - providing calories - that are genuine synthetic food without plant origins. Glucose is not as it is produced from starch.
-
BC, a small correction is warranted: hydration of ethylene will give ethanol while hydration of acetylene( with hgso4 catalyst usually ) will give acetaldehyde. Other than that, i'm in full agreement with all your points.
-
Ethanol is food for the human creature( not ideal, but still food ). It is oxidised to acetate and used in the Krebs cycle to produce atp.
-
There is apparently quite a lot of Ethanol in molecular dust clouds...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Nine_atoms_(10) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Nine_atoms_(10))
I think it pertains to the question how the universe was "created" or happened. "In the beginning there was light... ". I still believe that the universe IS created in six days. :D
-
Incidentally, is there one single common food item today - providing calories - that are genuine synthetic food without plant origins.
If you want to be picky, probably not. Practically all the carbon that finds its way into laboratories and factories was harvested from coal, oil, chalk or limestone - the remains of things that lived when there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere - or recent plants and animals. Some CO2 is spewed up by volcanoes but direct capture from the air is not normally economic.
-
ethylene
Doh!
Well spotted.
The point stands.
It's perfectly possible to make acrolein and thus glucose in a lab.
But nobody would bother.
-
Incidentally, is there one single common food item today - providing calories - that are genuine synthetic food without plant origins.
No.
Because plants are cheap.
There might be some bits and pieces of additives that are synthetic.
-
ethylene
Doh!
Well spotted.
The point stands.
It's perfectly possible to make acrolein and thus glucose in a lab.
But nobody would bother.
"But nobody would bother" maybe only after it has been done, not before.
If you could create a living cell from inanimate materials, would you bother? You would still "bother hell-of-a-lot" notwithstanding you would never be able to create "R'Bonney Gabriel The Greatess" for your own consumption.
-
"But nobody would bother" maybe only after it has been done, not before.
Did youthink that was a matter of contention.
It's 2023.
People have made glucose in a lab. They have shown that it can be done. It's vey expensive. There's no great point to doing it today.
Nobody bothers.
On the other hand, nobody has (yet) made life in a test tube so it makes sense to try (even if you just want the cash from a Nobel prize).
So what?
notwithstanding you would never be able to create "R'Bonney Gabriel The Greatess" for your own consumption.
That seems to have been meaningless bollocks with an added spelling mistake.
Was it meant to be relevant?
-
"But nobody would bother" maybe only after it has been done, not before.
Did youthink that was a matter of contention.
It's 2023.
People have made glucose in a lab. They have shown that it can be done. It's vey expensive. There's no great point to doing it today.
Nobody bothers.
On the other hand, nobody has (yet) made life in a test tube so it makes sense to try (even if you just want the cash from a Nobel prize).
So what?
notwithstanding you would never be able to create "R'Bonney Gabriel The Greatess" for your own consumption.
That seems to have been meaningless bollocks with an added spelling mistake.
Was it meant to be relevant?
I admit I have lost.
-
I seem to be missing something.
What was the purpose of this thread?
You asked a question
Can glucose be synthesized without organic inputs as sources?
And immediately answered it
Answer seems Yes. Synthesis without organic inputs.
Nature Magazine, 1887.
https://www.nature.com/articles/037007b0
You made a statement that looks like it might be a question in disguise.
What is the latest development. Is this synthetic glucose considered a "food", digestible.
I don't know what the latest developments are but glucose is glucose is glucose. Of course you could use it as food.
Somehow, the base substance to synthesize glucose must come from a source that traces back to an organic material.
That depends on your definition of organic but, in any event the laws of physics say that you can make compounds from the elements.
Your assertion about where it traces back to is simply wrong.
My main question is that, despite our advanced state in science and technology, we are still unable to synthesize genuine food from the basic fundamental elements
Your "main question" is a false statement.
It seems we are not able to "defeat" the creator of living things.
That just shouldn't be on a science page, should it?
You can't sensibly say you came here to ask us about the topic because, when I told you I got this
Question: Show me a DEFINITE link that acrolein may be synthesized from acetylene.
It's not actually a question; it;';s just an assertion that when you get an answer you don't like, you refuse to believe it.
I admit I have lost.
Lost what? The plot?
This isn't meant to be a competition; it's meant to be a discussion.