Chrome-free leather tanning!
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
AN important and revealing front page article on the above subject, was published in a local English daily on 18th. April. It was reported that tannery owners were reluctant to adopt this interesting new development in leather tanning from BCSIR. The authorities should call the tannery owners, and explain the advantages of this process. They should give them a simple and easy written pamphlet; if necessary with sketches, and cost and other savings; explaining and describing the new tanning process.
This is the best way to convince the tanneries; since they are set in their proven ways, and normally reluctant to change. Also BCSIR should train the concerned tannery technicians on how to do the tanning with the new chemical instead of the one they now use. This sort of mutual bilateral interaction will be useful in convincing the tannery owners in a positive manner. After all, changing the established process needs understanding and it should be convincing for the users.
The prospective users must be told and shown that using the new chemical, in no way deteriorates the quality or yield of finished tanned leather. The important fact it will prevent skin and other infections and diseases caused by chromium salts used in tanning. This must be explained to the workers as owners usually tend to overlook such hazards faced by workers.
The crux of the issue is 'operating costs' for the changed process. One positive step will be to offer lower import duty and taxes, if the new chemical is to be imported; compared to the chromium compounds now in use; so that specific cost per unit area of leather is reduced, This will be the catalyst; as all manufacturers would seriously consider cost reduction. Reducing environment pollution by minimising release of poisonous chemicals will not be so effective since the tanners have been doing this for a very long period.
Engr. S. A. Mansoor
Dhaka.
E-mail : sam07@dhakacom.com
This is the best way to convince the tanneries; since they are set in their proven ways, and normally reluctant to change. Also BCSIR should train the concerned tannery technicians on how to do the tanning with the new chemical instead of the one they now use. This sort of mutual bilateral interaction will be useful in convincing the tannery owners in a positive manner. After all, changing the established process needs understanding and it should be convincing for the users.
The prospective users must be told and shown that using the new chemical, in no way deteriorates the quality or yield of finished tanned leather. The important fact it will prevent skin and other infections and diseases caused by chromium salts used in tanning. This must be explained to the workers as owners usually tend to overlook such hazards faced by workers.
The crux of the issue is 'operating costs' for the changed process. One positive step will be to offer lower import duty and taxes, if the new chemical is to be imported; compared to the chromium compounds now in use; so that specific cost per unit area of leather is reduced, This will be the catalyst; as all manufacturers would seriously consider cost reduction. Reducing environment pollution by minimising release of poisonous chemicals will not be so effective since the tanners have been doing this for a very long period.
Engr. S. A. Mansoor
Dhaka.
E-mail : sam07@dhakacom.com