



This question follows on from our last one about the flaws with many SDSs: https://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/1w644t6/this_sds_for_hand_soap_suggests_that_if_you_get/
We’re imaging a version of an SDS specifically for scientists and researchers, rather than for vendors and lawyers. So far we’ve thought of including:
· Names, CAS numbers, formula, mol. weight
· What it looks like, what it shouldn’t look like
· What it smells like
· What it tastes like (and what wine to pair it with)
· How to make it
· How to store it (air/moisture/light/temperature sensitivity)
· how to purify, how to dry it
· how to neutralise it, how to dispose of it
· What not to mix it with
· Some example NMR or IR spectra
· Common impurities, decomp products
· boiling point, melting point, vapour pressure, density
· Solubilities in a range of solvents, not just water
· health hazards, toxicity, LD50
· PPE considerations, glove compatibility
· physical and reactivity hazards (corrosive, oxidiser, pyrophoricity etc)
We’d love to hear what else you can think of. It’d also be great to hear where you currently go to find these bits of info. Some of them are in an SDS, e-EROS can often tick off a bunch (assuming your institution pays for it), and even Wikipedia can be pretty good, but we can’t think of a single source that supplies everything we’d want to know. What do you reckon?
Which means it must be time to start thinking about our 2026 Noble Prize nominations. Drop some names in the comments for this year's Peace, Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Literature and Economics prizes.
We’re working on an article about chemical Safety Data Sheets (SDS), and having a bit of fun imagining what a better version might look like. We want to hear opinions from scientists working in research, industry, government or still at uni, about what parts of SDSs they find most inaccurate, unhelpful or absurd.
A lot of people have pointed out that SDS aren’t really written with research scientists in mind – they’re often targeted at (and written by) people without chemistry specific training (like transport/shipping/storage folks, firefighters and first responders), or for people handling industrial quantities of the stuff, or as an arse-covering excursive from a legal standpoint. However, as researchers we’re still expected to read them, use them in risk-assessments, and keep them in the lab. Furthermore, they’re often full of really stupid shit, like suggesting that spills of water be diluted with water, or that on no account should sand samples from a beach be allowed to enter the environment.
I think it’s fair to say that we’ve never received a manuscript quite like this before. Read on at your peril.
Sure, the peaks might not be as sharp as they are at 600 MHz, but this spectrometer can fit in your pocket, and runs on AAA batteries. PDF is downloadable from https://www.immaterialscience.org/2026/pocketnmr or from r/ImmaterialScience
Here’s the link: https://www.immaterialscience.org/volumes/volume5
PDF can be found on r/ImmaterialScience or at https://www.immaterialscience.org/2026/noseschlenk
J. Immat. Sci. Just turned 5. Thanks for sticking with us through half a decade of scientific bullshit folks! One of our repeat authors wrote us this charming paper to mark the occasion.