12 ms·

Magnetic method to clean PFAS contaminated water

180 points by clouddrover 4y ago

awestroke 4y ago
I wonder how healthy this "magnetic fluorinated polymer sorbent" is to drink
- mschuster91 4y ago
  It will get filtered out of the water post contaminant absorption, there should not be any after-effects.
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    > there should not be any after-effects. This is either ignorant or ill-intended and neither of those is ok. There is plenty of epidemiological data showing the very opposite: > Merrimack residents experienced a significantly higher risk of at least 4 types of cancer over 10 years between 2005 and 2014. Merrimack is a community with documented PFAS contamination of drinking water in public and private water sources. Results indicate that further research is warranted to elucidate if southern NH residents experience increased risk for various types of cancer due to exposure to PFAS contamination. [0] doi: 10.1177/11786302221076707.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      It is undoubted that PFxx exposure has after-effects, but the point of the comment I replied to was if the agent used to filter out PFxx compounds out of the water has after-effects. And as that agent will be filtered out after absorbing the PFxx compounds, there should not be any after-effects of the water treatment.
      - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
        I completely misread, utter flame blindness. There are so many online 3M/Dupont blame shifters that I completely jumped the gun.
      - chaxor 4y ago
        There is a lot hidden in "will be filtered out" here though. Filtration isn't binary, so this may only be useful in a few target areas where water sources are contaminated enough that introducing a new contaminate (these NPs) into the water will pull out more PFAS than are left behind after magnetic separation. The NPs (or more likely the PFAS that degrade off of the Fe3O4) also may have a different health affect than PFAS in the water stream (due to sulfonation etc). So it's certainly not that simple, but a great technology for companies trying to recover their chemical products and reactants for reuse and for areas where contamination is very bad.
kossTKR 4y ago
I live in a scandinavian country and PFOS was first found in extremely alarming amounts at various locations where cows have been raised, to such an extent that the local population is effectively poisoned and need life long screening if they have eaten any of the meat. This has started year long tests and PFAS (+pfos, pfoa) has sadly been found in large amounts in most sectors. Even in just the tap water. The latest finding - today actually - is in organic eggs because of fish bonemeal in their diets, but this is just because these items were tested, apparently it's everywhere. Rain samples collected recently showed amounts exceeding the EU safe thresholds. Point is, it's really, really bad and who knows what effects it will have. Counter point is that we've been swimming in a sea of inorganic chemicals for a long time and have just begun to test for them lately. Effects on fertility, cancer, alzheimers, and the ecosystem in general is the joker.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  I for one look forward to the check from DuPont that will surely cover all this.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    They’ll do what J&J pioneered and spin off a subsidiary that owns only the liabilities. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are-using-a-quiet-tactic-to-block-lawsuits-bankruptcy https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are... > Here's how the maneuver worked. First, last October, J&J spun off a subsidiary in Texas called LTL. > Then, using a wrinkle in Texas state law, J&J was able to transfer all of the potential liability linked to the tsunami of baby powder asbestos claims into the shell of the new company, while keeping valuable assets separate. > LTL then quickly filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina. That move immediately halted the baby powder cases, which could remain on hold for months or years.
    - sirsinsalot 4y ago
      You'd hope a judge would go "nice try" and apply the intent of law to them anyway.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sirsinsalot 4y ago
I've no idea how humanity hasn't managed to coordinate a global and immediate ban on these chemicals. We really can't keep ourselves safe in the face of greed.
- thorvaldsson 4y ago
  Not to sound too cynical, but humanity has rarely (or ever) been able to react in a coordinated timely fashion to any event threating it in any way. That is until we reach the brink. Think of the Montreal Protocol from the 80's, a treaty for phasing out and eventually banning CFC/HCFC's in an effort to protect and hopefully restore the ozone layer. The protocol was in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica in the 80's. To me, from everything I read and hear about PFAS pollution, it would seem we are at the brink again in terms of those chemicals.
  - gruez 4y ago
    CFCs were a nice confluence of events because there was a ready alternative available for CFCs. The same doesn't exist for PFAS.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Because most people don't care. People have more immediate problems than something that might kill/injure them decades from now. Most people don't even know about the potential dangers and where the chemicals are used. When people do find out, they're shocked/skeptical. As an example, my mother-in-law was using old non-stick pans. I had to tell about the FDA saying to throw out pans from before 2013. She was shocked. Then I had to explain the new pans still have similar concerns because they changed the formula which isn't that different and is just less tested. Her world view is that there's no way the government would allow anything harmful on the market. Yeah... ok...
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Her world view is that there's no way the government would allow anything harmful on the market. Yeah... ok... Its reasonable to expect that people in government and the nedia are doing their job to inform the public. I can't keep track of all the possible fuckups - like who here knows that Philadelphia police firebombed a house full of children in 1985 and noone was held accountable for their deaths? If that happened today in your city, maybe you would be defunding the police.
UI_at_80x24 4y ago
I will be installing a Reverse-Osmosis water filter soon.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  I was thinking the same thing but all those machine always use some form of flexible hose which from what I have seen are also chock full of plasticizers as well. Feels like a choose your poison sort of situation. It would be great to have a reverse osmosis machine where only the membrane itself was plastic and everything else was glass or steel. But I am not sure anything like that actually exists?
  - UI_at_80x24 4y ago
    Ouch, that's a good point.
  - xen2xen1 4y ago
    I'd think the single hose /apparatus would have much less exposure than most water supplies, especially over time. Maybe run the water for a bit before using?
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    I mean you could probably get copper piping to work on it with some plumbing skills and tools; copper is, as far as I'm aware, fairly inert in the human body. at the moment anyway.
  - _yb2s 4y ago
    I’m not worried about that. I have a counter top RO machine made out of plastic but the water comes out at nearly 0ppm TDS, and it flows through the machine slowly, at low temp, and for a short time. Whatever is in there is orders of magnitude less than you would find anywhere else, it’s basically laboratory grade pure water.
    - thearrow 4y ago
      Which machine do you have? I’ve been looking for a decent countertop RO system without much success.
JCM9 4y ago
Seeing people ask why PFAS hasn’t just been immediately banned. Like a lot of things, “it’s complicated.” 1. These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From lubrication to fire retardants there’s a reason these compounds are everywhere. 2. The press and many activists tend to treat things in a binary manner but science doesn’t really work like that. It’s clear that very high levels of these compounds are bad. It’s less clear that lower levels are bad. Lots of things (like vitamins) are toxic at high levels and actually good at low levels. Not saying PFAS is good, but it’s not as simple as just saying any is terrible either. 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much better over the years. We’re now talking parts per trillion measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything. A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to measure things combined with “2” above around any detection being slated as terrible. 4. Both the reporting and public’s reactions tend to be illogical. PFAS found at a nearby factory? Shut it down. Sue everyone. However a growing body of evidence is finding PFAS in things like synthetic turf playing fields and yet with rare exception most school districts seem perfectly happy having these instead of plain old grass. As such the amount of “outrage” is often rooted in the convenience of it supporting existing activist movements (close the factory!) than it is based in any science or defensible reality. Not for a moment trying to suggest we shouldn’t pay attention to this, and we probably should look for alternative compounds. But the near hysteria from some corners creates more of a distraction than actually helping anything.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Any widespread message must be simple. Even a moderate, sane movement will have hysteria on the fringes, just owing to it being large enough to have a fringe.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    So then why is HN, a community full of people who are much more educated than average and much more frequently employed in fields where logic and reason are key, so constantly receptive to the "hysteria on the fringes" take on such issues? Reddit, 4cham, other cesspools like that I get, but why HN? This community fancies itself as having a little more rationality and self awareness than that. So either there's an explanation for why those takes gain as much traction here or... (this is a serious question)
alwayslikethis 4y ago
TLDR: We'll clean up PFAS with.. more PFAS! Now, I understand why this works, but the filters themselves better be made without the hamrful fluorosurfactants, and they have to be disposed properly to avoid releasing toxic gases and/or more PFASes
apack 4y ago
For those looking for a water filter that easily installs into your sink: https://www.hydroviv.com/collections/hydroviv-water-filters https://www.hydroviv.com/collections/hydroviv-water-filters
- 6DM 4y ago
  Wow prices have really increased, I thought your recommendation was priced high but it turns out the original one I got in Feb 2021 only cost $79.99 now costs $449.99, that's insane: https://www.aquasana.com/under-sink-water-filters/claryum-3-stage-max-flow/brushed-nickel-100236357.html https://www.aquasana.com/under-sink-water-filters/claryum-3-... One thing to note, you really need to change your filters regularly, otherwise they will potentially introduce more bacteria than you would normally get from treated water. I know this video is a Singapore based media, but I think the information is relevant anywhere you live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObbHbx_2fY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObbHbx_2fY
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    The worse PFAS are found for your health, the more expensive these filters are going to be...
TheSoftwareGuy 4y ago
This sounds pretty great! It sounds like they created a chemical solution, which coats the PFAS stuff and makes it magnetic, so it's easy to remove with a magnet. The solution can be re-used up to 10 times, according to the article. I do wonder what happens to the solutions after that, I hope the solution itself isn't very dangerous
aaron695 4y ago
[dead]
ck2 4y ago
You are never going to clean all the rainwater on earth and almost all freshwater fishing is no longer safe https://www.su.se/english/news/it-s-raining-pfas-even-in-antarctica-and-on-the-tibetan-plateau-rainwater-is-unsafe-to-drink-1.620735 https://www.su.se/english/news/it-s-raining-pfas-even-in-ant... https://www.businessinsider.com/rainwater-no-longer-safe-to-drink-anywhere-study-forever-chemicals-2022-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/rainwater-no-longer-safe-to-... https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_US_fish/map/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_US_fish/map/
chaxor 4y ago
Neat. I did my Master's on a very similar idea. It was for performing several multi-step reactions in one reactor using some extra complexities, but the magnetic retrieval of the catalyst was the same. One issue with this that I see is that the covalent bonds created between the shell and core really need to be tested well in lots of pH and temperature environments, because if those NPs start degrading (which they always do at some level) then you're adding in contamination as well as removing it. That was always the scary part for me and why I've struggled to bring ideas to market - products that require precision don't really work in practice. The way things are used in the real world is very sloppy and products need quite enormous safety factors associated with them.
jangofett27 4y ago
We need more jurisdictions monitoring and publishing local PFAS levels, or people are never going to realize just how much of a problem this is in their areas. Most reports so far have just been case studies, and few states have picked up the torch and actually started regularly monitoring.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

180 points by clouddrover 4y ago

awestroke 4y ago

I wonder how healthy this "magnetic fluorinated polymer sorbent" is to drink

mschuster91 4y ago
It will get filtered out of the water post contaminant absorption, there should not be any after-effects.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  > there should not be any after-effects. This is either ignorant or ill-intended and neither of those is ok. There is plenty of epidemiological data showing the very opposite: > Merrimack residents experienced a significantly higher risk of at least 4 types of cancer over 10 years between 2005 and 2014. Merrimack is a community with documented PFAS contamination of drinking water in public and private water sources. Results indicate that further research is warranted to elucidate if southern NH residents experience increased risk for various types of cancer due to exposure to PFAS contamination. [0] doi: 10.1177/11786302221076707.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    It is undoubted that PFxx exposure has after-effects, but the point of the comment I replied to was if the agent used to filter out PFxx compounds out of the water has after-effects. And as that agent will be filtered out after absorbing the PFxx compounds, there should not be any after-effects of the water treatment.
    - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
      I completely misread, utter flame blindness. There are so many online 3M/Dupont blame shifters that I completely jumped the gun.
    - chaxor 4y ago
      There is a lot hidden in "will be filtered out" here though. Filtration isn't binary, so this may only be useful in a few target areas where water sources are contaminated enough that introducing a new contaminate (these NPs) into the water will pull out more PFAS than are left behind after magnetic separation. The NPs (or more likely the PFAS that degrade off of the Fe3O4) also may have a different health affect than PFAS in the water stream (due to sulfonation etc). So it's certainly not that simple, but a great technology for companies trying to recover their chemical products and reactants for reuse and for areas where contamination is very bad.

kossTKR 4y ago

I live in a scandinavian country and PFOS was first found in extremely alarming amounts at various locations where cows have been raised, to such an extent that the local population is effectively poisoned and need life long screening if they have eaten any of the meat. This has started year long tests and PFAS (+pfos, pfoa) has sadly been found in large amounts in most sectors. Even in just the tap water. The latest finding - today actually - is in organic eggs because of fish bonemeal in their diets, but this is just because these items were tested, apparently it's everywhere. Rain samples collected recently showed amounts exceeding the EU safe thresholds. Point is, it's really, really bad and who knows what effects it will have. Counter point is that we've been swimming in a sea of inorganic chemicals for a long time and have just begun to test for them lately. Effects on fertility, cancer, alzheimers, and the ecosystem in general is the joker.

arcticbull 4y ago
I for one look forward to the check from DuPont that will surely cover all this.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  They’ll do what J&J pioneered and spin off a subsidiary that owns only the liabilities. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are-using-a-quiet-tactic-to-block-lawsuits-bankruptcy https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are... > Here's how the maneuver worked. First, last October, J&J spun off a subsidiary in Texas called LTL. > Then, using a wrinkle in Texas state law, J&J was able to transfer all of the potential liability linked to the tsunami of baby powder asbestos claims into the shell of the new company, while keeping valuable assets separate. > LTL then quickly filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina. That move immediately halted the baby powder cases, which could remain on hold for months or years.
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    You'd hope a judge would go "nice try" and apply the intent of law to them anyway.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sirsinsalot 4y ago

I've no idea how humanity hasn't managed to coordinate a global and immediate ban on these chemicals. We really can't keep ourselves safe in the face of greed.

thorvaldsson 4y ago
Not to sound too cynical, but humanity has rarely (or ever) been able to react in a coordinated timely fashion to any event threating it in any way. That is until we reach the brink. Think of the Montreal Protocol from the 80's, a treaty for phasing out and eventually banning CFC/HCFC's in an effort to protect and hopefully restore the ozone layer. The protocol was in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica in the 80's. To me, from everything I read and hear about PFAS pollution, it would seem we are at the brink again in terms of those chemicals.
- gruez 4y ago
  CFCs were a nice confluence of events because there was a ready alternative available for CFCs. The same doesn't exist for PFAS.
giantg2 4y ago
Because most people don't care. People have more immediate problems than something that might kill/injure them decades from now. Most people don't even know about the potential dangers and where the chemicals are used. When people do find out, they're shocked/skeptical. As an example, my mother-in-law was using old non-stick pans. I had to tell about the FDA saying to throw out pans from before 2013. She was shocked. Then I had to explain the new pans still have similar concerns because they changed the formula which isn't that different and is just less tested. Her world view is that there's no way the government would allow anything harmful on the market. Yeah... ok...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Her world view is that there's no way the government would allow anything harmful on the market. Yeah... ok... Its reasonable to expect that people in government and the nedia are doing their job to inform the public. I can't keep track of all the possible fuckups - like who here knows that Philadelphia police firebombed a house full of children in 1985 and noone was held accountable for their deaths? If that happened today in your city, maybe you would be defunding the police.

UI_at_80x24 4y ago

I will be installing a Reverse-Osmosis water filter soon.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago
I was thinking the same thing but all those machine always use some form of flexible hose which from what I have seen are also chock full of plasticizers as well. Feels like a choose your poison sort of situation. It would be great to have a reverse osmosis machine where only the membrane itself was plastic and everything else was glass or steel. But I am not sure anything like that actually exists?
- UI_at_80x24 4y ago
  Ouch, that's a good point.
- xen2xen1 4y ago
  I'd think the single hose /apparatus would have much less exposure than most water supplies, especially over time. Maybe run the water for a bit before using?
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  I mean you could probably get copper piping to work on it with some plumbing skills and tools; copper is, as far as I'm aware, fairly inert in the human body. at the moment anyway.
- _yb2s 4y ago
  I’m not worried about that. I have a counter top RO machine made out of plastic but the water comes out at nearly 0ppm TDS, and it flows through the machine slowly, at low temp, and for a short time. Whatever is in there is orders of magnitude less than you would find anywhere else, it’s basically laboratory grade pure water.
  - thearrow 4y ago
    Which machine do you have? I’ve been looking for a decent countertop RO system without much success.

JCM9 4y ago

Seeing people ask why PFAS hasn’t just been immediately banned. Like a lot of things, “it’s complicated.” 1. These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From lubrication to fire retardants there’s a reason these compounds are everywhere. 2. The press and many activists tend to treat things in a binary manner but science doesn’t really work like that. It’s clear that very high levels of these compounds are bad. It’s less clear that lower levels are bad. Lots of things (like vitamins) are toxic at high levels and actually good at low levels. Not saying PFAS is good, but it’s not as simple as just saying any is terrible either. 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much better over the years. We’re now talking parts per trillion measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything. A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to measure things combined with “2” above around any detection being slated as terrible. 4. Both the reporting and public’s reactions tend to be illogical. PFAS found at a nearby factory? Shut it down. Sue everyone. However a growing body of evidence is finding PFAS in things like synthetic turf playing fields and yet with rare exception most school districts seem perfectly happy having these instead of plain old grass. As such the amount of “outrage” is often rooted in the convenience of it supporting existing activist movements (close the factory!) than it is based in any science or defensible reality. Not for a moment trying to suggest we shouldn’t pay attention to this, and we probably should look for alternative compounds. But the near hysteria from some corners creates more of a distraction than actually helping anything.

actionfromafar 4y ago
Any widespread message must be simple. Even a moderate, sane movement will have hysteria on the fringes, just owing to it being large enough to have a fringe.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  So then why is HN, a community full of people who are much more educated than average and much more frequently employed in fields where logic and reason are key, so constantly receptive to the "hysteria on the fringes" take on such issues? Reddit, 4cham, other cesspools like that I get, but why HN? This community fancies itself as having a little more rationality and self awareness than that. So either there's an explanation for why those takes gain as much traction here or... (this is a serious question)

alwayslikethis 4y ago

TLDR: We'll clean up PFAS with.. more PFAS! Now, I understand why this works, but the filters themselves better be made without the hamrful fluorosurfactants, and they have to be disposed properly to avoid releasing toxic gases and/or more PFASes

apack 4y ago

For those looking for a water filter that easily installs into your sink: https://www.hydroviv.com/collections/hydroviv-water-filters https://www.hydroviv.com/collections/hydroviv-water-filters

6DM 4y ago
Wow prices have really increased, I thought your recommendation was priced high but it turns out the original one I got in Feb 2021 only cost $79.99 now costs $449.99, that's insane: https://www.aquasana.com/under-sink-water-filters/claryum-3-stage-max-flow/brushed-nickel-100236357.html https://www.aquasana.com/under-sink-water-filters/claryum-3-... One thing to note, you really need to change your filters regularly, otherwise they will potentially introduce more bacteria than you would normally get from treated water. I know this video is a Singapore based media, but I think the information is relevant anywhere you live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObbHbx_2fY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObbHbx_2fY
- throwaway290 4y ago
  The worse PFAS are found for your health, the more expensive these filters are going to be...

TheSoftwareGuy 4y ago

This sounds pretty great! It sounds like they created a chemical solution, which coats the PFAS stuff and makes it magnetic, so it's easy to remove with a magnet. The solution can be re-used up to 10 times, according to the article. I do wonder what happens to the solutions after that, I hope the solution itself isn't very dangerous

aaron695 4y ago

[dead]

ck2 4y ago

You are never going to clean all the rainwater on earth and almost all freshwater fishing is no longer safe https://www.su.se/english/news/it-s-raining-pfas-even-in-antarctica-and-on-the-tibetan-plateau-rainwater-is-unsafe-to-drink-1.620735 https://www.su.se/english/news/it-s-raining-pfas-even-in-ant... https://www.businessinsider.com/rainwater-no-longer-safe-to-drink-anywhere-study-forever-chemicals-2022-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/rainwater-no-longer-safe-to-... https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_US_fish/map/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_US_fish/map/

chaxor 4y ago

Neat. I did my Master's on a very similar idea. It was for performing several multi-step reactions in one reactor using some extra complexities, but the magnetic retrieval of the catalyst was the same. One issue with this that I see is that the covalent bonds created between the shell and core really need to be tested well in lots of pH and temperature environments, because if those NPs start degrading (which they always do at some level) then you're adding in contamination as well as removing it. That was always the scary part for me and why I've struggled to bring ideas to market - products that require precision don't really work in practice. The way things are used in the real world is very sloppy and products need quite enormous safety factors associated with them.

jangofett27 4y ago

We need more jurisdictions monitoring and publishing local PFAS levels, or people are never going to realize just how much of a problem this is in their areas. Most reports so far have just been case studies, and few states have picked up the torch and actually started regularly monitoring.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]