Essays/linkedin/26-02-25 wet chemistry

<p>Can wet chemistry be the limiting factor to the space parameter in which we search for new materials? </p> <p>I always associated synthesis with a liquid-based approach. My first approach was trying to crystallize compounds by careful evaporation, then I got into making gold nanoparticles in a beaker. But I never stopped to think whether a liquid-based approach is the driving force in limiting the materials we can create. </p> <p>For example, when making nanoparticles, it is impossible to use a surfactant. Without it, particles would just aggregate. </p> <p>But surfactants cover active sites and become "something to deal with" at a later stage, if possible at all (something I learned the hard way when using PEGylated gold particles). </p> <p>But then, there are the thermodynamic considerations as well. </p> <p>Not all alloys (especially when thinking about high-entropy ones) can be synthesized in a beaker, regardless of the number of DFT simulations you run telling you how valuable they would be. </p> <p>We chemistry has the advantage of counting with a massive toolset for automation, and many roads for scalability. Getting started is normally very low cost, and labs can build complexity as required. </p> <p>With its own merits, maybe it is time to start thinking outside the box imposed by the wet-chemistry approach. </p> <p>Have you already considered dry synthesis methods? What are your biggest hurdles when thinking on how to incorporate them to your pipeline? </p> <p><img alt="Gemini_Generated_Image_l308egl308egl308.png" class="wikiimage" src="/gemini_generated_image_l308egl308egl308.png" /></p>