22 ms·
Engineers develop water filtration that removes “forever chemicals”
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- justaj 3y agoLink to the actual paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653523000097 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00456... Link to a better article: https://news.ubc.ca/2023/03/22/new-ubc-water-treatment-zaps-forever-chemicals-for-good/ https://news.ubc.ca/2023/03/22/new-ubc-water-treatment-zaps-...
- allears 3y agoMuch thanks for the good links! I hate trashy TV news videos.
- dang 3y agoOk, we've changed the URL from https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/engineers-develop-water-filtration-system-that-removes-forever-chemicals-171419717913 https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/engineers-develop-water-fi... to the latter article. Thanks!
- gigatexal 3y agoscience might just save humanity
- Frost1x 3y agoI had a chemistry teacher (retired analytic chemist for what's now DOW chemical) in highschool who pointed out something that stuck with me: We tend to act without consideration and have confidence we can just engineer ourselves out of our mistakes. I think she was right. While I never try to underestimate humanity's enginuity, there's some arrogance there that we may create problems we can't simply engineer around.
- guywithahat 3y agoTo be fair though, in the context of humanity we've never encountered a problem we couldn't later engineer ourselves out of. And it seems reasonable to think if we can engineer ourselves into the problem, we can engineer ourselves out of it as well (especially considering the alternative is to say we must stop innovating)
- rhaway84773 3y ago> we've never encountered a problem we couldn't later engineer ourselves out of I think this is survivorship bias. There have been several civilizations which have basically completely died out in human history, who weren’t able to engineer themselves out of whatever killed them.
- SoftTalker 3y agoTrue but with technology that had not advanced beyond stone, simple metallurgy, and hand tools. Ultimately limited by whatever power could be extracted from human and animal effort. Once steam power and then electricity were discovered, civilization never looked back.
- fwip 3y agoWe've only had 200 or so years of widespread steam power (and closer to 100 for electricity). On an anthropological timescale, that's quite short. Egypt was ruled by pharaohs for 3,000 years. The technology we have is bigger now, and so we're also making bigger problems.
- djbusby 3y agoStopping innovation not the alternative, you're creating a false dichotomy.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoRight. The alternative is to engineer in the solution at the same time you engineer the innovation, so that there's no problem in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Do we gain much by requiring innovators of the future to spend their innovation power on solutions to the side-effects of past innovations, instead of brand new innovations?
- bilsbie 3y agoI never could get a straight answer if the activated charcoal filters can remove these. I’m distilling my own water now. Seems about the same price as filtering once you factor in the costs of the filters. And you know you’re getting everything out. (I add in my own minerals in case that’s important.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lend000 3y agoI don't think distillation actually works for forever chemicals, as they may be miscible to a certain degree or also vaporize and condense. Don't have the source, but there was a story about PFAS in rain recently. Your best bet would be reverse osmosis, which is unfortunately a pretty big waste of water.
- flangola7 3y agoHow does reverse osmosis waste water?
- delecti 3y agoYou don't get all the water out that you put in. Currently, very efficient systems output about half the input as pure water, and half as doubly-impure. Less efficient systems are more like 1:2 or worse. I'm not an expert and can't explain it much beyond that. This summarizes the math better than I probably could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis#Disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis#Disadvantages
- cute_boi 3y agomaybe those wasted water can be used for other purpose like washing/flushing?
- 3y ago
- gibolt 3y agoHow prevalent are these in water (vs other parts of the environment)? Are there some common places where a few well-placed filters could have an outsized impact in cleaningup our mess?
- empyrrhicist 3y agoI think a big source is food, because it's bio-accumulating in our waste, which we spread on fields.
- MagicMoonlight 3y agoI don’t think human waste is used as fertiliser. It used to be and maybe it still is in some areas but it’s incredibly dangerous because it obviously contains human-specific diseases.
- empyrrhicist 3y agoIt's called "land application", and is still a thing. They don't apply human waste directly, it's digested biosolids.
- PaulKeeble 3y agoWe really ought to show more care and test more when we are creating chemical marvels and new materials. At a certain level of scale a lot of the inventions of the last 50 years turned out to be quite damaging to our health and environment. We don't seem to have the balance right yet comparing freedom to release whatever and complete lockdown until something is proved safe and we keep damaging people and the biodiversity of the planet on which we depend.
- robcohen 3y agoYou could make the argument that we really need better methods and technology for determining the health impact of what we put into our environment. The problem as I see it (as a total layman) is that the health sciences are not good at determining the effects of almost anything in the future. The best we can do is wide-scale studies that try to control for different variables (and largely fail, because the set of variables is incredibly large). I have a feeling we aren’t going to solve this problem anytime soon, as the simulations required appear to be so large they are beyond our reach. I am optimistic that we can massively increase the data collected as time goes on, and that will increase our accuracy of studies of things that occurred in the past.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> is that the health sciences are not good at determining the effects of almost anything in the future For this particular case I think the real problem is that no one really spent much effort seeing the effects of particular PFOAs in cell culture prior to marketing it. We've had cell culture for over 100 years, so this lack is basically because people either didn't even think about it, or didn't care thanks to dollar signs or greater fear of another threat (household fires).
- mandmandam 3y agoI've been hearing about the dangers of Teflon for at least a quarter century. Lawsuits were being settled in the 9-figure range as far back as 2001 - they kept making it, and actively covered up what they knew, tobacco firm style. I haven't watched it yet, but 'The Devil We Know' apparently goes in depth on this, with very highly rated reviews. I don't need to be that angry right now though; I know enough about Du Pont for "strong opinions" as it is.
- PlasmonOwl 3y agoBy the way this is ridiculously sensationalised. Would love to see the world rid of nonsense chem journalists. They’re operating about 200 ppb at lowest conc. usually we’re looking to remove from a 1 ppb. Low quality journal. The issue with PFAS and them bad bois is the accumulation in body. It’s already low in the environment and doesn’t degrade. So this guy will be all good if we’re sitting at 200 ppb in the environment. If we were at that level I reckon we’d be a lot more cancery. Most of top of my head, please check what I say. I’m not an encyclopaedia but I did research in adjacent areas
- twelve40 3y agoif you claim this is sensationalized (ridiculously, too) would you care to decipher what this means: > They’re operating about 200 ppb at lowest conc. usually we’re looking to remove from a 1 ppb who does "they're operating" refer to in this sentence?
- greenie_beans 3y agolol yeah that comment is hard to decipher
- PlasmonOwl 3y agoSorry fellas I was baked. Yeah basically that's the cricket. If solutions they use are higher than those in the 'real world' it's actually a much bigger challenge than one would think at a first pass. Seeking a 1 ppm solution is a milligram in a litre, this is challenging. 200 ppb (this paper) is impressive, and on the cutting edge. Now, in the real world: 1-2 ppb and below that is where the real challenge lies. It's seeking a needle in a haystack, where your real world solution will contain a million other 'competing' species that will be preferentially bound or decomposed by your agent. The agent could be decomposition agent or a sorbent.
- floil 3y agoMy interpretation: the paper describes a system that works for a starting concentration of 200 parts per billion, or higher. This is unrealistic because, in real world contamination scenario, you would expect to see a starting concentration of around 1 part per billion.
- youniverse 3y agoI came across this book Estrogeneration which covers this stuff and more. Haven't read it yet but bottom line he gives this site link where he provides products he has researched and likes. He does recommend a reverse osmosis machine etc. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Estrogeneration-Estrogenics-Making-Sick-Infertile/dp/1946546011 https://www.amazon.com/Estrogeneration-Estrogenics-Making-Si... [2] https://www.ajconsultingcompany.com/whatiuse.html https://www.ajconsultingcompany.com/whatiuse.html
- hombre_fatal 3y agoLooks like that book talks about flax seeds and soy which is a red flag for quack territory. If flax seed and soy are so estrogenic and bad, then let’s look at the evidence. Meta analysis of 41 studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/ > Sub-analysis of the data according to isoflavone dose and study duration also showed no effect. This updated and expanded meta-analysis indicates that regardless of dose and study duration, neither soy protein nor isoflavone exposure affects TT, FT, E2 or E1 levels in men.
- vjerancrnjak 3y agoWhat about hops (beer)? I remember beer having magnitudes more than soy or flax seed. It also turned out that gut bacteria in human keep producing the phytoestrogen from beer days after consumption. [0] [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15826034/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15826034/
- cyberpeach 3y ago> neither soy protein nor isoflavone exposure affects TT, FT, E2 or E1 levels in men I'm team science, however, I think it's important to point out that total testosterone and free testosterone are only part of the equation. You also have to look at androgen receptor sensitivity. From the study you quoted: > there were insufficient data to evaluate the effects of isoflavone exposure on androgen receptor (AR) expression More research is needed.
- deleted 3y ago
- hgomersall 3y agoMy understanding is reverse osmosis is pretty good for this for home use. Under-sink RO filters are pretty easy to source and fit.
- soperj 3y agoWonder if they also remove carbon nanotubes...
- bertil 3y agoI know there was a big scare around PFAS and stick-free pans. That confused me because they are actually on most food-wrapping. Sure, the heat and scraping don’t help the pans, but I can’t imagine that having it on most things we throw in the trash and then burn or put in a landfill helps much. > The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently approves more than 90 PFAS in food container materials ranging from paper cups, parchment paper, and microwavable popcorn bags to fast-food wrappers, pizza boxes, and pet food bags, the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council reported in September 2021.
- ALLTaken 3y agoOh my god, I didn't know it's on most food wrapping. So when I get a coffee to go it's also a PFAS that seals the paper from the fluid?
- Teever 3y agoAnd it's on the inside of those shitty new papers straws. Blows my mind, we've replaced relatively inert pieces of plastic with paper coated in this PFAS stuff and we're acting like it's good for us and the environment. plastic straws were a rounding error on a rounding error of plastic waste.
- neurobama 3y agoThermal hydrolysis (raising water/sewage to very high temperatures and pressures) can also break down PFAS and other bad stuff like pharmaceutical compounds. The Washington, D.C. Blue Plains water treatment plant uses this technology to safely convert septic sludge to fertilizer, sold under the brand name Bloom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Plains_Advanced_Wastewater_Treatment_Plant#Sludge_treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Plains_Advanced_Wastewate... https://bloomsoil.com/faqs/#what-is-bloom https://bloomsoil.com/faqs/#what-is-bloom edit: As I Google to double-check my recollection, I'm finding mixed but encouraging reports on this technique's effectiveness. For instance this 2021 paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213343721020698 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22133... >To our best knowledge, there are only two studies that have evaluated fate of PFAS in sludge before and after HTL. In a report presented by Mitroshkov et al. [19], 15 PFAS were quantified in five sludge samples before HTL. After HTL, concentrations of the majority of these PFAS were below detection limit of the GC/MS/MS. However, the authors did not report the HTL operating conditions used in this study. In addition, PFSAs including PFOS, the commonly recognized most recalcitrant PFAS, were not targeted in this work. >In another study, degradation of five PFAS (i.e., PFOA, 7:3 FTCA, 8:2 FTUCA, 8:2 FTS, PFOS) in sludge by HTL was conducted [35]. Among the five, each spiked at 1000 µg/kg, the first three were degraded > 99% at 350 °C for 90 min. Degradation of 8:2 FTS and PFOS was 34% and 67%, respectively. It was found that undegraded PFAS partitioned to the biocrude phase, which may negatively impact the quality and use of these biocrude in the real world. >Compared to PFAS in water only, more degradation was observed when these PFAS were spiked to sludge. It was speculated that metal ions and mineral solids in the sludge might have contributed to enhanced PFAS degradation [35].
- diordiderot 3y agoCouldn't find them on LinkedIn
- neurobama 3y agoWho do you mean exactly?
- 3y ago
- xarthna 3y agoIt is important to stop the introduction of these chemicals and microplastics into our environment. That should be the number one goal - to stop it at it's source instead of dealing with it after the fact. Depending on how the filtration systems scale, not everyone would be able to benefit - and certainly not wildlife which is affected. In the meantime, it may be effective to remove these chemicals from your body through regular blood and plasma donation[0]. Although not entirely altruistic, I doubt those in need of emergency blood are asking if it contains PFASs. In the end it helps you and those in need. I have also recently switched to stainless steel cookware and picked up a LifeStraw home water filter[1] that claims to reduce these chemicals in your drinking water. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994130/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994130/ [1] https://lifestraw.com/products/lifestraw-home https://lifestraw.com/products/lifestraw-home
- revscat 3y ago> It is important to stop the introduction of these chemicals and microplastics into our environment. This is an unreasonable, although noble, goal. The petrochemical industry is simply too embedded to be meaningfully regulated in the ways that it should be. They have had de facto nation state powers for decades, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia/Aramco, are state actors themselves.
- humanizersequel 3y agoMoreover the tradeoffs that would come with an actual meaningful reduction in, say, microplastics, are drastic QOL downgrades that many people would not accept, forever chemicals be damned.
- asdfman123 3y agoThere’s already a long list of petrochemical byproducts that are regulated. Sure, it’s not perfect, but nothing is.
- emodendroket 3y agoThe name "forever chemicals" kind of suggests that these things being in essentially every body of water on earth means we still could use a way to deal with filtration even if we never pollute again.
- revscat 3y agoIf this becomes commercially available I will be very curious to see what effect it has upon obesity levels.
- mbrochh 3y agoNone. People eating carbs while sitting all day long causes obesity, not trace amounts of some chemicals.
- twelve40 3y agoPeople have been eating less carbs and exercising more for a number of years if not decades now, but obesity is steadily climbing, so this is not a correct explanation for the continuing growth. https://qz.com/1230097/new-cdc-report-shows-americans-exercise-more-than-ever-but-the-obesity-rate-is-growing https://qz.com/1230097/new-cdc-report-shows-americans-exerci... https://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-soda-consumption-lowest-level-30-years/story?id=38036424 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-soda-consumption-lowest-l...
- electrondood 3y agoIf this is scaleable, it will be very interesting to see changes in the trends of various disease rates before/after.
- thewanderer1983 3y agoIf you have a common under the sink or above water filtration system that includes Active Carbon (granular activated carbon) filters and Reverse Osmosis. Most contain both, they are highly effective in removing PFAS.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago> Most contain both Most installed water filters are not reverse osmosis because it takes up too much room, wastes a bunch of water, needs to be remineralized, is more expensive than a non-RO 3 stage filter, and is not significantly more effective than a 3 stage that includes carbon.
- Mistletoe 3y agoWhat are the stages in a 3 stage filter? Do they really even remove anything? Think about it- if they aren’t removing minerals they aren’t removing things like lead, arsenic, chromium… It’s like a glorified Brita filter and doesn’t even lower the ppm of the water that comes out of it.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago> What are the stages in a 3 stage filter? The first stage is some kind of sediment filter, either sand, ceramic, or polypropylene. The second and third stages are usually both activated carbon. > Do they really even remove anything? Yes. There are measurement standards for this. All of the major brands provide independent lab analysis data sheets. For instance: https://www.brondell.com/content/Coral_UC300_PDS_092821.pdf https://www.brondell.com/content/Coral_UC300_PDS_092821.pdf > It’s like a glorified Brita filter Brita also provides performance datasheets for their filters. https://www.brita.com/assets/23601607167498ba405a22f7692b3b86.pdf https://www.brita.com/assets/23601607167498ba405a22f7692b3b8... > Think about it... It sounds like you have not yet learned about the NSF/ANSI testing standards for water filtration. Today is your lucky day my friend: https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/articles/standards-water-treatment-systems https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/articles/standards-wa...
- alphanumeric0 3y agoI'd like a device kit to measure the amount of these chemicals in my body.
- MagicMoonlight 3y agoThere’s no way water companies will spend money on these frivolous filters. There’s no profit in saving fertility and brain function.
- nchohan 3y ago[dead]
- mtgentry 3y agoDoes anyone know if the firefighter’s blood/plasma is disposed of? Or can it be treated in some way so it’s usable?
- denton-scratch 3y agoArticle doesn't seem to say anything about how this technique removes PFAS from water. Disappointed.
- elil17 3y agoYou can actually already buy a Brita-compatible filter which removes PFAS: https://cyclopure.com/dexsorb/ https://cyclopure.com/dexsorb/ It uses a starch which has been sized to interact with PFAS molecules.
- unixhero 3y agoSomeone invent a Seinfeld joke here. Then why are they called forever chemicals?
- garfieldnate 3y agoThere are some really nice lakes here in Düsseldorf that had to be closed to the public due to PFAS pollution. Makes me sad when I walk by them because they are beautiful, surrounded by trees, and there are still rope swings and such around, indicating to me that it used to be a great recreation spot.