Chemical Curiosities

The Battery ParadoxWe live in a world of batteries. They are in our smartphones, laptops, wearables, tablets, and speakers - all the devices we surround ourselves with every day. But it’s not just the things we use or wear that have batteries. They are increasingly being found in things that help us move, too. In 2025, for example, 25% of all new cars sold globally were electric vehicles, powered by rather large lithium-ion batteries. Batteries, though, are just complex chemical reactions that are neatly packaged. They can be fire and safety hazards. Making them isn’t exactly “green,” either. And what do we do with them when they no longer work? That depends on the battery type! Although lead-based batteries are recycled at nearly a 100% rate, the global recycling rate of lithium-ion batteries is significantly lower. It’s just too expensive to do. In many cases, the components are worth less than the cost of recycling. If we are going to live in a world of more and more batteries, we will need to figure out new ways to repurpose and reuse them. Recently, researchers have developed a new way to tease apart two common battery components that have proven difficult to remove from battery waste. They didn’t do this with new machines or some novel scientific theory. Instead, they did it with something you can find in a wine bottle. Hello everyone! My name is John Knight. As a chemist and writer, my goal for these audio posts is to peel back the curtain on the chemistry of our modern world. Whether it’s the latest lab breakthrough or the hidden science in our daily lives, I’m here to break things down without getting bogged down in the technical details.Before we dive deeper into today’s topic, just a quick reminder: if you’re listening to the audio-only version, be sure to check out the full post on my Substack. There, you’ll find a transcript of what I’m saying and some visuals that help you “see” some of the chemistry we're about to discuss.Now, let’s get back to the surprising solution to a long-standing problem in battery waste recycling…Chemical TwinsBefore I go into what the recent breakthrough is, we need to look at two specific battery components: cobalt and nickel. Next to lithium, these are workhorses in the battery world. If you drive a long rangeTesla, there’s probably a battery containing lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA for short). Other common batteries use a combination of nickel, manganese, and cobalt, known as NMC. What do these two metals do? Well, nickel acts as a kind of energy booster, increasing the energy density of a battery and enabling faster charging rates. Cobalt is more of a stabilizer. It’s used to extend the lifespan of a battery and improve its stability.When it’s time to recycle these batteries, however, there’s a big problem. Before these metals can be reused, they need to be separated. Colbalt and nickel, though, don’t separate very easily. They’re right next to each other on the periodic table and are almost chemical twins. Many people would have trouble telling the two pure metals apart!Normally, we can separate metals using a process called electrowinning. Here, you take a liquid solution of the metals and apply a specific voltage to it. By changing the voltage value, you can pull each metal out of the solution. Cobalt and nickel, though, are two elemental peas in a pod. In other words, they come out of the solution at the same specific voltage. If you try to remove cobalt from the solution, the nickel comes right along with it. Currently, cobalt and nickel are separated using something called solvent extraction. It can get the job done, but it’s rather expensive. It also uses a lot of chemicals - think of giant vats or tanks of hazardous chemicals and specialized, toxic molecules. The process isn’t universal, either. What works for one type of battery waste may not work for another. Researchers have been on the hunt for cleaner, cheaper ways to separate these two important metals for years. Recently, they found a molecule that helps tease them apart: tartaric acid. Tartaric AcidBelieve it or not, you’ve probably seen tartaric acid before, even if the name sounds alien. It’s a natural organic acid found in grapes and many other fruits. If you’ve ever used cream of tartar to make baking powder or stabilize egg whites, you’ve used a derivative of this acid. It also plays an important role in the fermentation process, contributing to the acidity and flavor of wine in particular.If any wine lovers are listening, you might recognize tartaric acid as the source of so-called wine diamonds. These are small crystals of potassium bitartrate, a salt of tartaric acid that tends to form over time at the bottom of wine bottles or on the cork. They can also form in wine barrels during storage. Some who see them for the first time think there’s broken glass in their wine, but there’s nothing to fear. These crystals are pretty harmless!Tartaric acid is actually a bit of a celebrity in organic chemistry. The famous scientist Louis Pasteur used this molecule in 1841 to discover chirality - the idea that molecules can have "handedness” and can exist as mirror images of each other. In other words, it’s the stereotype of chirality. So, it’s pretty interesting that a molecule found in everything from your morning muffin to a bottle of Merlot may also be used to solve the problem of separating cobalt and nickel. How It WorksHow did researchers use tartaric acid to separate cobalt and nickel? Well, it turns out that researchers have been trying for years to find molecules that can effectively wrap themselves around one of the metals and change its properties. Think of it as a kind of chemical hug that traps one metal so you can easily remove the other. Concentrated chloride salts showed some promise in the past, but they’re a bit harsh and require large quantities to work.To find something that will make a perfect chemical hug, researchers at John Hopkins University examined 13 different organic acids from nature, which they call bioacids. Among these acids was citric acid, the acid found in lemons, oranges, and other fruits, and lactic acid from yogurt. Of all the acids, though, tartaric acid proved uniquely suited for this role. What makes tartaric acid special is its molecular architecture. When you add tartaric acid to a solution of cobalt and nickel, two of these acid molecules work together to trap two ions of cobalt or two ions of nickel. You might be thinking, “Don’t cobalt and nickel basically act the same?” In many cases, that can be true. Conveniently, tartaric acid actually has a strong preference for nickel over cobalt. It effectively traps the nickel.By binding to nickel ions so strongly, tartaric acid makes separating the two metals using electrowinning much easier. Their voltage potentials are no longer the same because one metal has another molecule wrapped tightly around it!No expensive chemicals required. No hazardous waste or flammable solvents. Just add a byproduct of winemaking and use standard electrochemical methods.Using tartaric acid, researchers recovered cobalt and nickel with purities over 95%. And they didn’t do this with just simple laboratory solutions, either. They tested tartaric acid on real-world battery waste, recovering cobalt with over 99% purity. They even built a flow system that enabled them to recover cobalt, nickel, and manganese, one after another.Using tartaric acid isn’t just a cleaner or simpler process. It’s potentially much cheaper and more energy efficient than what is used in industry today.ConclusionIt’s important to keep in mind that transitioning to greener energy often comes with hidden drawbacks. Batteries are one example of this. If it’s cheaper to just mine more minerals than to recycle old, worn-out batteries, things may not be as green or sustainable as we think. That’s why research such as this is important. We are proving that we don’t need to use expensive, hazardous chemicals to recycle battery components. We can use a common organic acid to reduce the number of lithium-ion batteries that end up in a landfill or the environment. Sometimes, the solutions to problems aren’t new or exotic. They might, in fact, just be sitting in something like a wine bottle.Thanks for listening to this audio post. If you want to see an example of how tartaric acid molecules wrap themselves around nickel ions, check out the full post on Substack. You can also find a link to the original paper in the references. And if you liked what you’ve heard, be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss the next one. I’m John Knight, and I’ll see you in the next post.References and Notes This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnknightphd.substack.com

A DreamHas there ever been something that you've spent your whole life trying to prove - something that’s lived in the back of your mind for decades? Although Hollywood might want us to think otherwise, many chemists don’t spend their lives staring at flasks or holding beakers of colorful liquids. Their goals are the same as those of other people: get that degree, start a career, publish, and make a name for themselves along the way. Some chemists, though, really do have chemical goals in mind. For Saarland University’s Dr. David Scheschkewitz, that goal was making a single molecule, one predicted to exist years ago but seemingly impossible to make in the lab. He had been chasing it for nearly thirty years, and most of the students who joined his research group took a crack at synthesizing it - only to fail. And suddenly out of nowhere, one of his students serendipitously succeeded! That molecule isn’t just something with a lot of atoms and a long, scary name, either. It challenges ideas of how atoms form bonds, and its very core contains an element that most organic chemists never get to play with directly: silicon. Hello, everyone! My name is John Knight, and my goal for this audio post on my Substack is to share a recent breakthrough in chemistry without getting bogged down in all the lab details. Before I continue, let me just say that if you’re listening to just the audio, check out the full post on Substack. You’ll not only find a transcript of everything I’m saying but also see some nice visuals of the “impossible” chemistry I’m going to describe.Interested in more content about chemistry and science? Subscribe below!Carbon vs. SiliconSo, let’s start with a very fundamental question: why is carbon so special, and why does nature prefer carbon over silicon even though they are so close to each other on the periodic table?In many ways, carbon is the perfect element for building complex molecules. It can form multiple bond types: single, double, and triple. It easily bonds to itself and elements like hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, creating the stable chains and rings that make up life. The proteins, fats, and carbohydrates in our bodies are all built on a framework of carbon atoms. But what about silicon, the second-most abundant element in the Earth’s crust? It’s right below carbon on the periodic table. It should behave similarly! In reality, it doesn’t. We don’t really find any silicon versions of organic molecules in nature. Silicon is a bigger atom, and that makes all the difference. Its bonds are longer and, in many cases, weaker compared to carbon’s. In fact, it would rather form a rigid network of single bonds with elements such as oxygen, the kind of structure you find in sand or computer chips. It generally dislikes forming double or triple bonds, too. Carbon atoms can also do something quite special. If the right number of carbons form a flat ring with the right number of bonding electrons, they can share some of those electrons across all the carbons in the ring. Chemists call this aromaticity, and it makes the molecule significantly more stable than you would expect. Ever heard of benzene, the molecule that looks like a hexagon with three lines in the middle? That’s the poster child of aromaticity! Aromaticity shows up throughout organic chemistry and biochemistry. For example, four of the amino acids that make up proteins have aromatic rings, and the fundamental building blocks of DNA - nucleotides - are also aromatic. Many compounds with strong, pleasant aromas are aromatic, as well.Forcing silicon to form stable, aromatic rings has long been a kind of holy grail of research for decades. And that’s where Dr. David Scheschkewitz’s work comes into play. A Eureka MomentSo, what exactly is this “impossible” molecule that the lab was trying to make for years? It’s not the silicon version of benzene - that was actually achieved back in 2010. No, the “impossible” molecule in this case is an all-silicon version of a molecule named cyclopentadienide. To keep things simple, imagine five atoms bonded in the shape of a pentagon with two double bonds and a negative charge. If the atoms are carbon, then you have a classic, stable arrangement that every organic chemistry student learns about. Silicon usually doesn’t like this arrangement, though. For decades, creating an all-silicon version of this classic organic molecule seemed an “impossible” hurdle to clear. Then, something different happened. You might call it a ‘eureka’ moment. Apparently, a grad student in Dr. Scheschkewitz’s lab was trying to prepare a completely different molecule when he obtained an unexpected result. The data said it contained a unique arrangement of silicon atoms that was relatively stable.Now, chemists have a few tricks to determine just what a molecule looks like. One tool they have is something called X-ray crystallography. The basic idea is simple. First, you grow a small crystal of the molecule you’re interested in. Next, you shoot X-rays at it. Why X-rays? It turns out that X-rays bounce off atoms when they hit them. If you record the pattern the X-rays make after bouncing off atoms, you can construct a 3D model of the molecule. In other words, it’s almost like a photo of how the atoms are arranged. That’s exactly what Scheschkewitz’s student did with his unexpected product. Scheschkewitz apparently almost fainted when his grad student showed him the result. What they obtained was, in fact, a unique silicon compound, and it looked very similar to cyclopentadienide: five silicon atoms in the shape of a pentagon, flat, and decidedly aromatic. The silicon atoms are all bonded to large groups of carbon atoms that help protect the central ring from unwanted reactions. It was a dream molecule come true. If you want to see what this crystal structure looked like, I’ve included the image in the text of this post!A Remarkable CoincidenceUp to this point, I’ve actually only told half of the story. If the work of the Scheschkewitz lab had been all there was, it would still be quite an achievement. In a remarkable twist, however, a Japanese research group at Tohoku University was independently chasing the same dream!While the German lab’s synthesis was serendipitous, the work of Dr. Takeazi Iwamoto’s lab took a methodical, stepwise journey to build the target molecule over several steps. Where one group made it unintentionally, the other group made it intentionally, using decades of previous attempts as a guide. Both groups agreed to mutually publish their findings side by side in the journal Science earlier this month.Interestingly, there were a couple of key differences in their products. The German-made molecule was brick-red, while the Japanese-made molecule was more orange. The color suggests something was fundamentally different about how the silicon atoms were bonded. When Dr. Iwamoto’s lab obtained an X-ray crystal structure of their molecule, they discovered it wasn’t completely flat (or nonplanar). Even the distances between the silicon atoms were not the same. Despite this, the molecule still exhibited some aromatic behavior. You can check out this structure in the text if you’re interested, as well!How can the “same molecule” exist in two different forms? It turns out that silicon is incredibly flexible compared to its smaller cousin carbon, and it’s possible that the two forms exist in equilibrium with each other. Temperature likely plays a role. Theoretical chemists will likely have their work cut out for them trying to explain this more complex and nonclassical behavior.Why This MattersSo, why does this really matter? Besides bragging rights, why would chemists be interested in making this kind of molecule? How could it potentially change our future?One obvious application would be the development of new catalysts for chemical reactions. The carbon versions of these compounds have a long history in catalysis to create everything from plastics to medicines. Because these silicon-containing rings are larger and bulkier, they could give chemists better control over how these catalysts react. They could also pave the way for advanced materials. Material scientists might one day build electronics from atomically precise clusters of silicon atoms - in other words, custom-designed pieces of silicon that work exactly the way we want them to.Just as importantly, though, the synthesis of these compounds challenges theories of how chemical bonds are formed. Drs. Scheschkewitz and Iwamoto were probably told in the past that they were chasing a fool’s errand. Silicon just can’t form these kinds of bonds in the real world. Well, today, we know they can exist. Chemists will now have to explain not just how these molecules behave but also how we can make similar ones. ConclusionI decided to talk about this research because I think it’s an example of chemists pushing the boundaries of what we think we know. The real world is actually far more complex and interesting than what we find in a textbook. Plus, it’s genuinely inspiring to read about the culmination of 30 years of research. Persistence really does matter!If you’re interested in learning more about this “impossible” molecule and its synthesis, I’ve included links to the original papers published in Science in the references. Thanks for taking the time to listen!References and Notes This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnknightphd.substack.com

IntroRecently on Substack, I wrote about one of the world’s favorite indulgences: chocolate. Humans have been eating chocolate for at least four thousand years. From the moment it was introduced to the world outside Mesoamerica, it embarked on a journey where it not only became popular but also changed form. Today, chocolate is everywhere. At the store, it’s in the candy section, the baking section, the frozen food section, and even the health food section.Despite all this time spent with chocolate, we’re still surrounded by myths and misinformation about what it does to us. Is it stronger than your cup of coffee? Will it make your sex life better? Can it get you high? Can a ‘chocolate’ not even be real chocolate?Over the next few minutes, I’m gonna focus on some chemistry myths about chocolate - myths associated with a particular chemical or component found in chocolate. Let’s start with the buzz you might think you’re getting from that morning piece of chocolate. Chocolate Contains a Massive Amount of CaffeineYou might have heard someone say that eating dark chocolate is like drinking a shot of espresso. It’s an old myth about chocolate that doesn’t seem to go away. Personally, I think this particular myth comes from confusion about theobromine, which I wrote about in my last post here on Substack. Theobromine is a stimulant, too, but it just doesn’t affect the body in quite the same way as caffeine. Caffeine hits you fast with an immediate energy boost that can fade in a short time. Theobromine is milder, longer-lasting, and more focused on your heart and circulatory system.While it’s true that chocolate does contain small amounts of caffeine, it’s relatively low. Even a full bar of dark chocolate contains less caffeine than a cup of poorly prepared coffee! So, no, your hot chocolate or candy bar doesn’t contain as much caffeine as a double espresso. But will it make you fall in love?Chocolate Will Turn You Into CasnovaOne of the most common myths associated with chocolate is that it’s an aphrodisiac. In other words, it increases sexual desire, pleasure, and feelings of love. At some point, you’ve probably heard of the legendary Venetian adventurer and libertine Giacomo Casanova and his love of chocolate. He famously claimed that chocolate was not only an aphrodisiac but also second best only to champagne. He supposedly drank a special mixture of hot chocolate and spices - cinnamon, cloves, black pepper, and vanilla, among others - every day and before his romantic encounters. Even today, people sometimes drink a “Casanova-style” hot chocolate that mimics what the Venetians supposedly drink.There’s also the legend of the Aztec Emperor Montezuma, who supposedly drank 50 golden cups of chocolate per day (and maybe more). Most people today probably wouldn’t recognize Montezuma’s chocolate beverage. Modern chocolate drinks are often warm, sweet, and inviting. The chocolate drink consumed by the Aztecs was thick, cool, earthy, frothy, and even spicy. This was no smooth drink, either. Cacao powder, as we know it, didn’t exist yet! By consuming all this savory and unapologetic chocolate, Montezuma was apparently guaranteed stamina and vigor before his physical encounters.But is there any truth to this idea?Well, chocolate does contain chemicals that affect your body. The stimulant theobromine certainly increases your heart rate and boosts your energy levels, and darker chocolate can have a lot of it. When it comes to feelings of love, though, one chemical is frequently cited when it comes to chocolate: phenylethylamine - let’s call it PEA for short. PEA acts like a stimulant in our central nervous system, and it probably influences the levels of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain. Chocolate does have some PEA, so the thinking is that the PEA in chocolate will cause chemical changes in the brain that promote feelings of love and pleasure. Unfortunately, chocolate doesn’t have much PEA. Furthermore, your body doesn’t actually want chemicals from your food to easily influence your brain chemistry. Most of the PEA you consume from chocolate is quickly broken down before it even has a chance of reaching your brain. In fact, the association of PEA, chocolate, and love or arousal may even be based on pure speculation.So, chocolate isn’t a miracle love potion. Maybe you’ve heard, however, about how it can make you high?Chocolate Will Get You HighWhen I first heard this myth, the explanation was that chocolate contains a special chemical that reacts in the brain the same way THC from cannabis does. The person who told me this didn’t actually know the name of this chemical, but it was pretty obvious from his enthusiasm that he believed every word anyway.To talk more about this myth, I have to introduce a molecule with a rather ‘zen’ name: anandamide. This is a fatty acid derivative that targets the same brain receptors as the active ingredient in cannabis. By doing this, anandamide influences everything from our mood to even memory.Now, chocolate does contain anandamide, and high levels of this molecule are associated with reduced anxiety and improved mood. Chocolate also contains related compounds that inhibit the normal breakdown of anandamide in the brain, keeping levels elevated for longer. Sounds like this myth could be true! As with many things, though, quantity matters.On average, one finds only very small quantities of anandamide in chocolate - as much as 50 micrograms in a standard bar of dark chocolate. Put another way, if you could separate all the anandamide from the dark chocolate, it would look more like a speck or two of dust. According to some estimates, you would have to consume over 25 lbs (11 kg) of chocolate to experience any sort of high. Good luck doing that! Even if you did get high from all that effort, I don’t think you would exactly feel comfortable!So, it isn’t quite coffee. Not quite viagra or marijuana, either. That’s a lot of things that chocolate isn’t! Now let’s finish this discussion with the controversy surrounding the “black sheep” of the chocolate family, which ironically is white. I’m talking about white chocolate. White Chocolate Isn’t Real ChocolateSome people love white chocolate, and the market for it is expanding. In fact, it seems to be most popular among Millennials in the United States right now. It’s still far behind dark chocolate and milk chocolate, however. Despite its growing popularity, there’s a problem - to some chocolate purists, white chocolate is just a big lie.For devoted chocolate lovers, chocolate isn’t chocolate without the nonfat components of the cacao bean that contribute to its color and flavor. White chocolate doesn’t have any of that. Instead, confectioners usually mix up cocoa butter, milk, sugar, and maybe vanilla to produce it. Even stimulants like theobromine are mostly missing without the cacao solids.So, in the eyes of purists, white chocolate is really just sweetened, flavored cacao fat.One could argue that white chocolate is still a product of cacao beans, though. Legally, the government considers it to be chocolate and even has a strict definition for what qualifies. At worst, it’s like a cousin of normal chocolate. It even has that melt-in-your-mouth texture of chocolate thanks to the cocoa butter. If you like white chocolate, don’t let anyone shame you for it. Just tell one of those purists that you're really a botanical fat enthusiast!OutroSo, what have we learned? Chocolate probably doesn’t have the pharmaceutical superpowers the legends claim, and it won’t replace your americano from the cafe. That doesn’t make it less interesting or tasty, though. In fact, people seem hardwired to enjoy it. It tastes good. Its smell is inviting. It melts in your mouth. Chocolate lovers describe eating it as an experience that goes beyond one bite. Even if chocolate doesn’t guarantee a night of bliss on Valentine’s Day, it is still positively enjoyable.Whether your preference is for ultra dark purity or white chocolate, go ahead and enjoy every bite. Nature, along with some creative human intervention, has given us something truly unique. Interested in more content about chemistry and science? Subscribe below!References and Notes This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnknightphd.substack.com

The Storm that Trended AwayOn Sunday, January 18th, 2026, social media accounts in the United States began to chatter about an upcoming weather event for the following weekend. Along with intense arctic air coming down from Canada, a storm system seemed poised to develop and track across the southern United States. There was a high chance of a significant snow and ice event in areas not accustomed to severe winter weather. By Monday, computer model guidance maps were being shared across platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok - some with scary language describing the weather as “going off the rails” or being unprecedented. The spread was so significant that even people who don’t nerd out about the weather heard of the impending storm. My neighbor even commented to me that day about how we were going to get an inch of freezing rain that weekend!To some extent, the reaction from people was a bit predictable. The storm itself did develop, but it tracked significantly farther north than some computer models showed earlier in the week. People argued about trends and which model was better or worse. Expert forecasters even found their forecasts challenged by people armed with nothing more than gut feelings or an attachment to a particular model or outcome. Others panicked, with some stores in my local area running low on certain common items before the weekend, despite the official weather forecast calling for mostly rain. If you wanted to buy some bread here, you may have been forced to buy the healthy stuff that people apparently don’t like during an emergency.Today, people can easily obtain information that was once available only to experts (if at all). For $20 a month (or even free in some cases), you can buy access to the latest weather model guidance, whether you really understand it or not. Information and data have become increasingly democratized in our world.Personally, I’ve tended to think of this as a good thing. Is there a point, however, where all of this easily accessible information becomes more noise than something useful? Have we as a society traded not knowing about something for knowing enough to be wrong? And how are the people who should know better acting? The Danger of a Little InfoAccess to information can be a good thing. News can spread more quickly. Knowledge that used to be located only in hard-to-find books can now be easily obtained on the internet. We can even access raw data, such as the information that a chemist used to characterize newly synthesized molecules. This can create issues when people don’t really understand what they are reading or seeing, though. Misformation, as we all know, can spread just as easily as information.In the late 2010s, health and wellness influencers began talking about serotonin, an important neurotransmitter and hormone in the human body that regulates everything from mood to sleep quality. Serotonin, it was argued, is mostly made in your gut, and your gut health, therefore, significantly impacts your mood and emotional well-being. Some claimed that your poor mood could be quickly reversed with special supplements or by consuming fermented foods. So-called “psychobiotics” were marketed as a kind of biohack or biological upgrade. And what do you know? People loved to hear it! Unfortunately, the fact that serotonin produced in your gut can’t cross the blood-brain barrier never became widespread knowledge on social media. Today, millions of people have submitted DNA samples to services that promise information about their ancestry and health. It’s not uncommon for people to discover that they have a genetic variant that may or may not be consequential. For example, many learn that they have a genetic variation in the MTHFR (Methyltetrahydrofolate reductase) gene. Variations in this gene can impair the body’s ability to process folate (Vitamin B9). Folate is an essential molecule for important biological processes such as cell growth or DNA synthesis. Claims have been made on social media linking these genetic variants to everything from infertility to cancer. Some have even claimed that the consumption of folate itself could be lethal to certain people. The gene was “broken,” and expensive and unproven supplements were necessary to “fix” the problem. Ironically, these genetic variants are quite common, with 50-60% of people having one of them. There is no evidence that they prevent the human body from processing folate completely. Nonetheless, mere knowledge of their existence proved problematic. Information can also make people feel like they are the experts. As crime investigation shows such as Law & Order or CSI became more popular in the 1990s and 2000s, viewers became acquainted with forensic science. Legal observers noticed over time that jurors in criminal trials began developing unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence, possibly because of these shows. A lack of definitive evidence, such as DNA and high-tech test results, could increasingly be viewed with suspicion. Why was there no DNA? Why are there no good fingerprints on the weapon? After an acquittal in the famous Casey Anthony trial, some argued that this so-called “CSI Effect” led the jury to hold the prosecution’s evidence to an impossible standard.The Expertise CrisisWhile information has become more democratized, expertise has been experiencing a crisis of its own. Where experts in the past could expect gravitas and authority to make people listen to them, now they find themselves challenged and viewed with increasing skepticism. Part of this, I think, is due to a growing trend towards anti-authority in our world. People are increasingly distrustful of governments and institutions. Society is more and more divided. Conspiracy theories spread rapidly online. More and more, people are encouraged to “do their own research” and come to their own conclusions. I also think, however, that experts collectively have done themselves no favors. Some seem to view expertise as a status to be brandished rather than something that should be demonstrated. You might even see posts on social media that go something like: “As someone who has worked many years in [X], here’s why you’re wrong about [Y]…” Sometimes, their expertise or degree is only distantly related to whatever they are talking about. The assertion of authority is what’s more important, though. For others, expertise seems to depend on absolute certainty. Saying things like, “I don’t know” or “The data is evolving” may feel more like a weakness that might cost them influence or a seat at the table. Admitting uncertainty might feel like giving the “other side” a victory. This attitude can be especially problematic when experts project certainty that later falls apart.What Can We Do As a Society?So, how do we deal with this world we find ourselves in? Some might love to go back to a time when gatekeepers controlled more information and people deferred to expertise without questioning it. We aren’t going back, though. We will never have less information available than we do today. Much like with AI, the genie can’t be put back in the bottle, so to speak. In fact, it’s still coming out! I don’t pretend to have a perfect answer to this question. I do think, however, that there are some things people can aspire to in this increasingly information-heavy world:* People should wait. Whether it’s a weather model being shared on social media or a study claiming that coffee treats cancer, people should avoid quick reactions. How accurate is that model guidance? Just how good is that study? What do others think about it?* Skepticism should be encouraged, not discouraged. Asking "How do we know this?” is not a terrible thing. By itself, it’s not a sign of distrust. Not being able to answer the question is itself a problem, too! What we should be discouraging is cynicism and closed-mindedness.* Accept that there is probably more to what you hear, read, or see. It’s important to respect the gap between having information and understanding the process that created it. The same goes for having incomplete information. * Accept that certainty is not always possible. We like binary answers: yes/no, safe/unsafe, rain/no rain, good/bad. Our world isn’t binary, though. Compounds in coffee may be useful at warding off cancer, for example, but more than one study and a lot of work are needed to provide any certainty of that. We have to get more comfortable accepting things like “Maybe,” “We’re not certain,” or “ We don’t know.” So, how are you navigating this increasingly information-saturated world we live in? Do you cheer on the democratization of data, or do you yearn for the days of gatekeepers? Is a little information truly a bad thing? Let me know what you think! Interested in more content about chemistry and science? Subscribe below!References and Notes This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnknightphd.substack.com

Note from author: This is one of my shorter, more audio-focused posts that I make between my long-form articles. If you’re interested in my most recent audio post on Hangxiety, click the link below!Did you know that when you’re working out at the gym, your breath is changing the air chemistry of the room for everyone else?…You walk into the gym for the first time in the new year. Perhaps you made a New Year’s resolution, and this is your first visit - hopefully, the first of many. Or maybe you’re a regular who has been working out for years. Regardless, the scene that greets you is familiar to many.The gym is packed, full of New Year warriors ready to get fit or lose weight. It’s loud. The gym music can barely be heard above the sounds of voices and overhead TVs. Weights are dropped on the floor. People count loudly or grunt. And then there’s the air: heavy and warm with perhaps a rubbery smell…something slightly sweet, or maybe a hint of citrus or pool water.It turns out that your gym membership came with an unadvertised perk - you get to breathe in a cocktail of chemicals while you work out! Congratulations!So, what is it that you’re breathing in, and what, if anything, is it doing to you? Let’s find out!What’s In the Air…First off, let’s “clear the air,” so to speak, about chemicals. The word is often used menacingly. We live in a world where people try to limit their exposure to “chemicals,” looking for “chemical-free” solutions to problems. Social media is full of content warning about the dangers of common chemicals. It’s all part of the greater trend of people being more and more concerned about their health and what they are exposed to. The thing is, though, chemicals are everywhere. They don’t have to be artificial or unhealthy, either. The air in your house is full of chemicals. The street cafe you like to drink lattes at has its own chemicals. Even that beautiful mountain meadow in spring, with its colorful flowers and “fresh air,” is a biochemical factory.Ironically, people obsess over air quality at home or outside, but they seem to think nothing of the air quality in their gym. It’s a temple to health improvement, after all! It has to be okay!The truth is that the air in your gym, especially when it’s crowded, can have more sources of chemicals than people realize. Some are expected, while others may sound scary. Here are some of the top chemicals and particles you can find in a typical gym:* Carbon dioxide (CO2)CO2 is breathed out by humans as part of normal respiration. If more people are working out, there is significantly more CO2 in the air. This can make the air feel “heavy” and “stale.”* Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)The dust and particles are generated by movement, friction on machines, and stuff kicked up from the floors. These are 2.5 micrometers or smaller - about 30 times smaller than a human hair. - and are small enough to bypass your lungs’ natural filters.* Metabolic organic moleculesThese are molecules generated by the human body during workouts. Someone exercising can emit significantly more chemicals than a person at rest. One of these is acetone, which your body releases when you’re low on carbs and burning fat even for short periods of time. Then there’s human sweat, which has its own chemical cocktail. When molecules such as these make it into the air (and they do), they can react to create entirely new compounds.* Cleaning productsThese are kind of special to the gym environment because of how often they are used. Cleaning products usually contain a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine-based disinfectants. We might apply them to benches and surfaces at the gym, but just like a person’s sweat on a bench, they don’t stay there. Some of these chemicals can also react with those metabolic molecules mentioned previously.Cleaning products can also release a lot of scent molecules, such as limonene, which has a citrus-like smell.On a special note, some cleaning product chemicals can react to form a special class of molecules called N-chloramines and N-chloraldimines. Essentially, these molecules react with things like acetone in your breath or amino acids in sweat to produce new compounds with nitrogen-chlorine (N-Cl) bonds. Anyone who has spent a lot of time around a swimming pool knows exactly what they smell like.* Infrastructure organicsThis is just a way of saying the floors, walls, and building are giving off chemicals. You breathe in things like benzothiazole from the rubber flooring. Paint and adhesives can contain solvents called BTEX chemicals that are slowly released into the air. That vinyl mat you lie on while working out? It might release small amounts of phthalates every time you adjust your position.How Crowds Can Make It Worse…All of these molecules exist in the air of a gym, but the levels in crowded gyms might surprise people. For example, CO2 levels inside a crowded gym may be over five times that of normal air, and the humidity levels may also be quite high. Gyms often lack the best ventilation, too. There may be no open windows, and the HVAC system may struggle without you even realizing it. Gyms will cut corners to save money, as well. For example, I used to go to a 24-hour gym that would completely turn off the HVAC system at night during the summer - a fact they initially denied when they tried to tell people that gyms are naturally warmer and more humid at night!Can All of This Affect You?Now, the question you may be asking yourself at this point: do any of these things affect me? The answer is that they might. The number one effect of poor air quality at the gym is so-called “gym headaches.” This can be caused by the higher CO2 levels and other volatile organic molecules, some of which can also cause sensitivities and allergic conditions.Most importantly, for those trying to push themselves the hardest at the gym, all of this poor air quality can make your lungs work harder, resulting in a drop in available oxygen. High levels of particulate matter can even cause inflammation in the lungs and eyes. All of this leads to lower performance.These effects can be temporary, especially if they are the result of really crowded time periods or poor ventilation. Of course, working out over long periods of time in these environments can lead to chronic problems.What Can You Do?So, what can you do about your exposure to all of this? Cancel your gym membership? Buy a home gym? There’s no need to go that far! You can lower your exposure in some ways if it concerns you.* Avoiding crowdsPeople are the biggest driver of volatile chemicals in gym air, so it might be a good idea to avoid times when the gym is really crowded. Sign up for classes that aren’t so full. Go at night or in the middle of the day.* Think about where you work outYou may not be able to avoid crowds, but you can try to avoid working out in tight spaces or at a gym that is not well-maintained.* Clean surfaces and machines properlyBelieve it or not, a lot of people think they’re being “extra clean” but dousing equipment and surfaces with cleaning sprays. They’re actually doing the opposite! Those people just fill the air with chemicals. It’s better to just spray directly on the towel you’re going to use to wipe things down.* Practice good hygieneThis is entirely under your control! Do everyone else a favor and keep clean. Remember that your body contributes, too.Final Thoughts…Of course, many of these chemicals that I mentioned can be encountered in other places. Gyms are unique environments, though. There aren’t a lot of places where you will potentially find a lot of people breathing heavily, sweating, and pushing or pulling equipment in a relatively closed environment. These conditions can even lead to some unique chemistry in the air.The next time you’re at the gym, take a deep breath and think about what you smell. Does it smell like rubber? Citrus? Pool water? Paint remover? That can give you a clue about what’s happening in your gym’s air.If you have any story or experience you’d like to share, let me know in the comments!References This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnknightphd.substack.com

Transcript:If you’ve ever woken up at 4:00 AM after a night out with a racing heart and a sense of embarrassment, you’ve probably experienced ‘hangxiety.’ In the main article I wrote on my Substack about the chemical causes of hangovers, I discussed ethanol and the metabolic crisis it creates as your body tries to remove it. That’s not the only crisis happening, though!Hangxiety is your nervous system struggling to regain balance after being disrupted by ethanol. To understand where this anxiety comes from, we need to look at the two most important neurotransmitters in your head: GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) and glutamate. Think of your brain like a seesaw. On one side, you have GABA. This is your ‘inhibitory’ neurotransmitter that promotes relaxation. On the other side, you have glutamate, an excitatory neurotransmitter.When you drink, ethanol acts as a massive weight on the side of GABA. It mimics the effects of GABA, telling your brain to relax and calm down. Your brain doesn’t like this disruption! It tries to balance the seesaw by cranking up its own production of glutamate.Here is the problem: ethanol is a relatively short-term guest. As your liver clears it, that ‘fake’ GABA weight disappears. Your brain can’t respond quickly enough as it’s still trying to produce glutamate. Suddenly, the seesaw slams down on the glutamate side. This puts you into a state of hyperexcitability. That is hangxiety.At the same time, alcohol triggers a massive spike in cortisol, your primary stress hormone. Usually, cortisol levels drop at night to let you rest. Ethanol keeps this from happening, leaving your body in a physical ‘fight or flight’ state long after the party is over.This chemical chaos is made worse because you’ve lost your ‘Emotional Reset’ button. Ethanol also suppresses rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, which is the stage of sleep where your brain processes emotions and files away stress. Without it, the logical part of your brain is weakened.The result is that your hyper-reactive, sleep-deprived brain begins worrying about worst-case scenarios. You aren’t just tired; you are obsessively reviewing every cringeworthy thing you might have said.If you want a mental picture of this, think of your brain like a high-end nightclub.While you were drinking, ethanol acted like a heavy-handed security team that kept everyone quiet and orderly. But when that security team suddenly leaves the building at 4:00 AM, the crowd goes wild. They pump up the volume, start a riot, and break windows. Hangxiety is like that riot. The good news? It’s temporary! Your real ‘security team’ will return as your brain chemistry returns to normal, usually within 24 to 48 hours.How severe this hangxiety is depends on the person. Some people may never experience much anxiety after a night of heavy drinking. Others will suffer considerably and may need to avoid alcohol entirely. The same advice for avoiding hangovers also applies here: * Keep yourself hydrated. * Eat something. * Use breathing exercises to calm down your heart rate. * Avoid caffeine or other stimulants. * Get plenty of restUltimately, the best thing you can do is remind yourself that the sense of doom you feel isn’t real. Your brain is in a chemical imbalance. You’re not a bad person. The world is not ending. And you probably didn’t do anything that no one else hasn’t done before. Thanks for taking the time for this separate audio deep dive. If you found it interesting, let me know in the comments!References This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnknightphd.substack.com