4 ms·

Glass is the gold standard for a non-reactive chemical. Use glass jars instead of plastic whenever possible.

by novia 2y ago

mrob 2y ago
Glass isn't good enough for extreme non-reactivity, e.g. for containing ultrapure water used in semiconductor fabs. The real gold standard for non-reactive chemicals is PTFE, which is a PFAS. This shows that lumping all PFAS together as "forever chemicals" makes no sense. So long as you never overheat it (easily confirmed with an IR thermometer), PTFE is one of the safest food-contact materials you can get.
- amelius 2y ago
  How about borosilicate glass?
  - mrob 2y ago
    Still more reactive than PTFE.
    - adrian_b 2y ago
      While PTFE is much more inert than common glass and even than borosilicate glass, it is not a good material for food storage. The reason is that PTFE, like any plastic, is porous, so it can never be perfectly cleaned, but it will retain embedded in it some residues of the food previously stored in it. This can lead just to some undesirable smell, but in appropriate temperature and humidity conditions it can also lead to the growth of bacteria. For food storage and handling, the best food-contact materials remain glasses or metals, which can be cleaned perfectly.
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    While PTFE (Teflon) is resistant to many chemicals that would damage borosilicate glass, borosilicate glass is perfectly safe in contact with food. Borosilicate glass is much more resistant to acids (except hydrogen fluoride) than to alkalis, but most foods are acidic or neutral, none are alkaline. Of the materials commonly encountered, the safest for food contact are borosilicate glass, normal glass, commercially-pure titanium and stainless steel.
- novia 2y ago
  The part where you don't want to overheat it is the issue when it comes to food. We humans really like to heat our food.
  - mrob 2y ago
    Depends what you're cooking. I'd never sear meat on non-stick, but there are many other dishes that don't need high temperatures.
    - galleywest200 2y ago
      Plenty of people place plastic containers into microwaves.
      - mrob 2y ago
        That's also risky because of the potential for hot spots. I microwave things regularly, but in glazed ceramic.
    - Dayshine 2y ago
      The main issue I see is that it's impossible to know how hot a pan surface is, and food cooks very differently at the same temperature depending on things like moisture content. So how on earth do you know whether it's at high temperature?
      - mrob 2y ago
        >it's impossible to know how hot a pan surface Just point an IR thermometer at it. They're cheap and useful for cooking even if you're not using non-stick.
- forgot-im-old 2y ago
  One of the most insightful comments being downvoted?
- dqv 2y ago
  The association of PTFE with PFAS makes perfect sense. Part of the manufacturing process of Teflon (brand name PTFE) involves (involved?) GenX, which is reactive and was being dumped our drinking water supply. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene The commonly known brand name of PTFE-based composition is Teflon by Chemours, a spin-off from DuPont, which originally discovered the compound in 1938. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX GenX chemicals are used as replacements for PFOA for manufacturing fluoropolymers such as Teflon In June of 2017, The Wilmington Star-News broke the story that GenX was found in the Cape Fear River – the drinking water supply for 500,000 people.
  - mrob 2y ago
    It's not just "association"; PTFE literally is a PFAS. My point is there's a major different between PFAS polymers and PFAS small molecules. From https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/source/hsdb/833 https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/source/hsdb/833 : "Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8, is another man-made chemical. It is used in the process of making Teflon and similar chemicals (known as fluorotelomers), although it is burned off during the process and is not present in significant amounts in the final products." [GenX is very similar.] And there's no technical reason why manufacturing PFAS polymers necessarily has to result in PFAS small molecule pollution. The waste could be captured and treated with processes such as supercritical water oxidation. This would of course cost more, but seeing as there's no good substitute for PFAS polymers, I'd happily pay more for them. Pollution, like all externalities, is a market failure, and it's the government's job to fix market failures with regulation.
    - dqv 2y ago
      Gambling with people’s health for a third time to “correct a market failure” is an incredibly grim proposition. Oh it causes cancer? We’ll try again with a new chemical! New chemical in the water supply? Oopsie, we’ll capture it with this next attempt!
      - mrob 2y ago
- momoschili 2y ago
  Chemical reactivity isn't the only thing at play here, in fact I'd say it's more burying the lead (kekek) than addressing the issue at hand. Sure glass isn't the most inert material, but another piece of the puzzle that is often neglected is mechanical abrasion. Once that surface has been compromised, the microplastics come right out. Glass has the benefit of very high chemical inertness while also being extremely resistant to mechanical abrasion. Some types of glass are clearly not good enough (eg most 'crystal'/lead glasses), but borosilicate and fused silica are certainly well proven materials. Another process that is relevant, leaching, while considered a 'chemical process' does not actually involve any kind of 'reactivity'. It's governed by solubility and statistical mechanics.
- adrian_b 2y ago
  Borosilicate glass or soda-lime glass are not good for storing ultrapure water because sodium ions will be leeched from the glass. This is not something that would matter in any food-contact application. While PTFE neither is modified by food nor any part of it is leeched into the food, it can retain minute amounts of food in its pores, which may be retained despite further attempts to clean it, which does not happen with glass. When a PTFE container is used to store different kinds of food, it can transfer the scent of one of them to the other. The PTFE recipients used for chemical experiments may be cleaned by aggressive methods, e.g. with strong acids and/or strong oxidants, which would destroy any organic substances. Such cleaning methods cannot be applied in a common household. Therefore borosilicate glass or soda-lime glass are better food-contact materials than PTFE, even if they can react with various chemicals that would have no effect on PTFE, but none of those chemicals are encountered in food.
Dig1t 2y ago
You are right it is much better, but it's not automatically helpful. Bottled beers have been shown to still have phthalates: https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/9/2/125#:~:text=Especially%20high%20concentrations%20of%20dibutyl,µg%2FL%20in%20sample%20C1 https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/9/2/125#:~:text=Especially%20.... >The lowest minimal total phthalates were found in glass bottles (7.07 µg/L), whereas the highest were determined to be in cans, at 101.60 µg/L. Even though they are significantly better than plastic and aluminum (lined with plastic) containers, they still contain phthalates. Also worth noting that the FDA has explicitly denied petitions to ban them in food: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-and-gras-ingredients-information-consumers/phthalates-food-packaging-and-food-contact-applications#:~:text=On%20May%2019%2C%202022%2C%20the%20FDA%20denied%20this%20petition.,the%20approved%20food%20additive%20uses https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-and-gras-ingredients.... >On May 19, 2022, the FDA denied this petition. >the petition also did not demonstrate the proposed class of phthalates is no longer safe for the approved food additive uses. This despite a mountain of evidence, going back 10+ years, showing that phthalates are endocrine disrupting chemicals.
- cinntaile 2y ago
  The phtalates do not come from the glass, they come from the (lined) caps or previous processing steps where plastics were used.
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    Correct! Sorry I did not mean to imply that the glass itself was the problem, just that choosing glass doesn’t mean that the product is phthalate-free. So many foods contain these chemicals because of some contamination during processing.

Glass is the gold standard for a non-reactive chemical. Use glass jars instead of plastic whenever possible.

by novia 2y ago

Glass is the gold standard for a non-reactive chemical. Use glass jars instead of plastic whenever possible.

mrob 2y ago

Glass isn't good enough for extreme non-reactivity, e.g. for containing ultrapure water used in semiconductor fabs. The real gold standard for non-reactive chemicals is PTFE, which is a PFAS. This shows that lumping all PFAS together as "forever chemicals" makes no sense. So long as you never overheat it (easily confirmed with an IR thermometer), PTFE is one of the safest food-contact materials you can get.

amelius 2y ago
How about borosilicate glass?
- mrob 2y ago
  Still more reactive than PTFE.
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    While PTFE is much more inert than common glass and even than borosilicate glass, it is not a good material for food storage. The reason is that PTFE, like any plastic, is porous, so it can never be perfectly cleaned, but it will retain embedded in it some residues of the food previously stored in it. This can lead just to some undesirable smell, but in appropriate temperature and humidity conditions it can also lead to the growth of bacteria. For food storage and handling, the best food-contact materials remain glasses or metals, which can be cleaned perfectly.
- adrian_b 2y ago
  While PTFE (Teflon) is resistant to many chemicals that would damage borosilicate glass, borosilicate glass is perfectly safe in contact with food. Borosilicate glass is much more resistant to acids (except hydrogen fluoride) than to alkalis, but most foods are acidic or neutral, none are alkaline. Of the materials commonly encountered, the safest for food contact are borosilicate glass, normal glass, commercially-pure titanium and stainless steel.
novia 2y ago
The part where you don't want to overheat it is the issue when it comes to food. We humans really like to heat our food.
- mrob 2y ago
  Depends what you're cooking. I'd never sear meat on non-stick, but there are many other dishes that don't need high temperatures.
  - galleywest200 2y ago
    Plenty of people place plastic containers into microwaves.
    - mrob 2y ago
      That's also risky because of the potential for hot spots. I microwave things regularly, but in glazed ceramic.
  - Dayshine 2y ago
    The main issue I see is that it's impossible to know how hot a pan surface is, and food cooks very differently at the same temperature depending on things like moisture content. So how on earth do you know whether it's at high temperature?
    - mrob 2y ago
      >it's impossible to know how hot a pan surface Just point an IR thermometer at it. They're cheap and useful for cooking even if you're not using non-stick.
forgot-im-old 2y ago
One of the most insightful comments being downvoted?
dqv 2y ago
The association of PTFE with PFAS makes perfect sense. Part of the manufacturing process of Teflon (brand name PTFE) involves (involved?) GenX, which is reactive and was being dumped our drinking water supply. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene The commonly known brand name of PTFE-based composition is Teflon by Chemours, a spin-off from DuPont, which originally discovered the compound in 1938. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX GenX chemicals are used as replacements for PFOA for manufacturing fluoropolymers such as Teflon In June of 2017, The Wilmington Star-News broke the story that GenX was found in the Cape Fear River – the drinking water supply for 500,000 people.
- mrob 2y ago
  It's not just "association"; PTFE literally is a PFAS. My point is there's a major different between PFAS polymers and PFAS small molecules. From https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/source/hsdb/833 https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/source/hsdb/833 : "Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8, is another man-made chemical. It is used in the process of making Teflon and similar chemicals (known as fluorotelomers), although it is burned off during the process and is not present in significant amounts in the final products." [GenX is very similar.] And there's no technical reason why manufacturing PFAS polymers necessarily has to result in PFAS small molecule pollution. The waste could be captured and treated with processes such as supercritical water oxidation. This would of course cost more, but seeing as there's no good substitute for PFAS polymers, I'd happily pay more for them. Pollution, like all externalities, is a market failure, and it's the government's job to fix market failures with regulation.
  - dqv 2y ago
    Gambling with people’s health for a third time to “correct a market failure” is an incredibly grim proposition. Oh it causes cancer? We’ll try again with a new chemical! New chemical in the water supply? Oopsie, we’ll capture it with this next attempt!
    - mrob 2y ago
momoschili 2y ago
Chemical reactivity isn't the only thing at play here, in fact I'd say it's more burying the lead (kekek) than addressing the issue at hand. Sure glass isn't the most inert material, but another piece of the puzzle that is often neglected is mechanical abrasion. Once that surface has been compromised, the microplastics come right out. Glass has the benefit of very high chemical inertness while also being extremely resistant to mechanical abrasion. Some types of glass are clearly not good enough (eg most 'crystal'/lead glasses), but borosilicate and fused silica are certainly well proven materials. Another process that is relevant, leaching, while considered a 'chemical process' does not actually involve any kind of 'reactivity'. It's governed by solubility and statistical mechanics.
adrian_b 2y ago
Borosilicate glass or soda-lime glass are not good for storing ultrapure water because sodium ions will be leeched from the glass. This is not something that would matter in any food-contact application. While PTFE neither is modified by food nor any part of it is leeched into the food, it can retain minute amounts of food in its pores, which may be retained despite further attempts to clean it, which does not happen with glass. When a PTFE container is used to store different kinds of food, it can transfer the scent of one of them to the other. The PTFE recipients used for chemical experiments may be cleaned by aggressive methods, e.g. with strong acids and/or strong oxidants, which would destroy any organic substances. Such cleaning methods cannot be applied in a common household. Therefore borosilicate glass or soda-lime glass are better food-contact materials than PTFE, even if they can react with various chemicals that would have no effect on PTFE, but none of those chemicals are encountered in food.

Dig1t 2y ago

You are right it is much better, but it's not automatically helpful. Bottled beers have been shown to still have phthalates: https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/9/2/125#:~:text=Especially%20high%20concentrations%20of%20dibutyl,µg%2FL%20in%20sample%20C1 https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/9/2/125#:~:text=Especially%20.... >The lowest minimal total phthalates were found in glass bottles (7.07 µg/L), whereas the highest were determined to be in cans, at 101.60 µg/L. Even though they are significantly better than plastic and aluminum (lined with plastic) containers, they still contain phthalates. Also worth noting that the FDA has explicitly denied petitions to ban them in food: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-and-gras-ingredients-information-consumers/phthalates-food-packaging-and-food-contact-applications#:~:text=On%20May%2019%2C%202022%2C%20the%20FDA%20denied%20this%20petition.,the%20approved%20food%20additive%20uses https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-and-gras-ingredients.... >On May 19, 2022, the FDA denied this petition. >the petition also did not demonstrate the proposed class of phthalates is no longer safe for the approved food additive uses. This despite a mountain of evidence, going back 10+ years, showing that phthalates are endocrine disrupting chemicals.

cinntaile 2y ago
The phtalates do not come from the glass, they come from the (lined) caps or previous processing steps where plastics were used.
- Dig1t 2y ago
  Correct! Sorry I did not mean to imply that the glass itself was the problem, just that choosing glass doesn’t mean that the product is phthalate-free. So many foods contain these chemicals because of some contamination during processing.