The Most Promising Ways to Destroy 'Forever Chemicals' (msn.com) 46
"Researchers are seeking a breakthrough in technologies to tackle PFAS contamination," reports the Washington Post — including experiments with ultraviolet light, plasma and sound waves:
"We're in a good spot," said Christopher Higgins, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the Colorado School of Mines who researches PFAS. "There's a lot of things being tested. ... Around the world, everyone is trying to work on this topic...." PFAS destruction technologies are beginning to show potential. Some methods have been licensed by companies that are rolling out the systems in real-world settings. "There's been a lot of research happening over the past few years looking at advanced destruction technologies, and there's been a lot of improvements and advancements, and we're now starting to see some of them actually at scale," said Anna Reade [a senior scientist and director of PFAS advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council].
An approach known as supercritical water oxidation is one of the more developed technologies, Reade and other experts said. It involves heating and pressurizing water to a specific point that creates the ideal conditions to break every carbon fluorine bond, said Amy Dindal [a PFAS expert with Battelle, a science and technology nonprofit that has developed a PFAS destruction technology]. The process used in a patented technology created by Battelle produces carbon dioxide and a form of fluorine that can be quickly neutralized to become a harmless salt. "It's a complete destruction and mineralization technology, because we're actually breaking all of the carbon fluorine bonds," Dindal said, adding that the technology is "PFAS agnostic...."
Another promising approach using heat and pressure was developed by researchers at the Colorado School of Mines [and already licensed by a company in Washington]. Known as hydrothermal alkaline treatment, or HALT, it involves adding a low-cost chemical reagent such as sodium hydroxide to superheated liquid water.... A destruction method that harnesses ultraviolet light has also emerged as a contender [has licensed by a company in Michigan]. When UV light oxidizes an electron-generating compound, it produces a powerful electron that's very reactive and strong enough to break carbon fluorine bonds... Other technologies are experimenting with the use of plasma, which can generate reactive electrons to break down PFAS but tends to require a large amount of energy. Researchers are also experimenting with a process that uses sound waves. High-intensity sound waves create small bubbles in a water system or liquid waste stream, Higgins said. As those bubbles collapse, they can generate the high temperatures and pressure needed to degrade PFAS.
But "At the end of the day, not using these chemicals unless it's absolutely necessary is the actually most effective tool in our toolbox," Reade said.
An approach known as supercritical water oxidation is one of the more developed technologies, Reade and other experts said. It involves heating and pressurizing water to a specific point that creates the ideal conditions to break every carbon fluorine bond, said Amy Dindal [a PFAS expert with Battelle, a science and technology nonprofit that has developed a PFAS destruction technology]. The process used in a patented technology created by Battelle produces carbon dioxide and a form of fluorine that can be quickly neutralized to become a harmless salt. "It's a complete destruction and mineralization technology, because we're actually breaking all of the carbon fluorine bonds," Dindal said, adding that the technology is "PFAS agnostic...."
Another promising approach using heat and pressure was developed by researchers at the Colorado School of Mines [and already licensed by a company in Washington]. Known as hydrothermal alkaline treatment, or HALT, it involves adding a low-cost chemical reagent such as sodium hydroxide to superheated liquid water.... A destruction method that harnesses ultraviolet light has also emerged as a contender [has licensed by a company in Michigan]. When UV light oxidizes an electron-generating compound, it produces a powerful electron that's very reactive and strong enough to break carbon fluorine bonds... Other technologies are experimenting with the use of plasma, which can generate reactive electrons to break down PFAS but tends to require a large amount of energy. Researchers are also experimenting with a process that uses sound waves. High-intensity sound waves create small bubbles in a water system or liquid waste stream, Higgins said. As those bubbles collapse, they can generate the high temperatures and pressure needed to degrade PFAS.
But "At the end of the day, not using these chemicals unless it's absolutely necessary is the actually most effective tool in our toolbox," Reade said.
Sounds cheap and easy (Score:1)
And with no possible unwanted outcomes. I look forward to its rapid implementation by companies.
Probably just in time to be powered by fusion energy from 3D printed reactors designed by AI.
Re:Sounds cheap and easy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, more like it's a process that can be standardized and added to large scale municipal water systems. It could also be used as a part of superfund cleanup operations (or similar).
Re: (Score:2)
So municipalities won't be measuring for this, won't be forced to fix it if they find something, and won't be getting any money federal money to fix it if they want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, all we need to do is collect all the PFAS from every cell in every organism in the world and expose it to a high temperature, caustic environment. Should be able to get this done pretty quickly if we use a meteor approximately 23.73km diameter.
I bet it would get done more reliably if it was rich in rare materials, I, for one, am in favor of the meteor and the mining jobs it will bring to the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a little problem there: Remioving PFAS from the environment and preventing them from getting there in the forst place. Suddenly "cheap" and "easy" and likely "possible" go out the window....
Ye of simple minds will always see answers that are simple, clear, easy ... and wrong.
indeed (Score:3)
At the end of the day, not using these chemicals unless it's absolutely necessary is the actually most effective tool in our toolbox
i would guess these methods are only aimed at destructing the material before it's left to rot and disperses everywhere, including our bloodstream and organs. it would be a good way of disposing of stuff but i'm sceptic about it being enough to offset the amount of contamination we create by continued production and use.
Re: (Score:1)
You're sceptic?!? Go see a doctor!
Re: (Score:2)
no need, i'm likely full plastic by now ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that's the problem they're trying to solve here, there is no known proper disposal for this, other than dump it into a bunker or shooting it out of orbit. if you bury it it will trickle into the soil and eventually find its way to the waterways anyway, so that's simply postponing the problem. burning it is even worse than letting it rot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Putin too scared to turn up to his own peace summit, because the Turks would have arrested him. So so funny.
yeah, that's an excelent point. it was indeed a trap, but for trump, not for putin.
you got to marvel at how the coalition of the clowns has the gall to demand a ceasefire. afaik the loosing side of any war isn't in a position to demand anything but to capitulate, not to mention that russia has consistently said for years now that a ceasefire will be negotiable when, and only when, the root causes of the conflict are addressed. whatever. anyway, what was the ultimatum? sanctions? like those thousands of sanc
Re: indeed (Score:2)
mmmm, Russian propaganda!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what a load of Russian crap propaganda. The very simple fact that none of that garbage can get around is that Russia started this war with no valid justification. All of the moronic Russian arguments about "the root causes of the conflict" are nonsense because all of the root causes can be easily resolved by a very simple argument that goes: "It's none of their freaking business".
"Denazification", yeah, neo-nazis exist in Ukraine, just like in the US, the UK, Germany, France, etc. and, oh yeah, Russia!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. First off, you don't really want to dispose of these. They're like catalysts in the manufacturing process, you want to keep them around. But they're easy to make so it's cheaper to flush the old ones rather than recycle them.
Second, you can destroy them pretty handily with a bit of heat. 200-450 degrees C is enough for partial decomposition, or 900 C if you want it total. But flushing them down the sewer is cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two kinds of humans. The ones that just throw trash out of sight and never consider the consequences. These people are the dumb majority. And then there is a small group that understands that actions have consequences and that these need to be looked at _before_ taking an action.
Re: (Score:2)
It is another fake "solution" aimed at preventing the masses from finding out they get poisined only so that super-rich assholes can make a buck more. The research has merit, but the reporting is a lie.
Break them down but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about not producing them in the first place.
Sure. But first close your Slashdot account, you won't need it in a world where we can't manufacture microchips. You should actually *watch* the video you just posted. They acknowledge the fact that stopping production is not an option for the human race currently, and that we have a long slog of identifying alternatives for many industries before that becomes viable.
Yeah. Right. (Score:3)
Because everyone in third world countries will look at their hazardous chemicals and plastics and then contemplate whether to invest in high temperature plasma technology. Or just throw their shit in the creek behind their hut.</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
You're misstating the problem. Much of the contamination comes from the initial production, most of which doesn't happen in 3rd world countries but rather western countries. A subset of it comes from improper handling of final goods as waste.
I'm not worried about 3rd world countries throwing a plastic package in their local creek, I'm more concerned about the fact that firefighting foam at my local airport is improperly treated before the liquid is disposed of leading to actual advice to restrict certain ac
Re: (Score:2)
They learnt that from the way the US does it in its fake sophistication. Well a bit less now that peole have realized they can sue when some rich assholes throw poison into the environment because it is cheaper, but there is still plenty of it going on.
Too expensive (Score:2)
Remediating any significant amount of soil is a lost cause, way too expensive. The only thing which is going to substantially remove it is subduction.
As I've said before, Greenpeace almost got it right ... if they had picked Fluorine instead of Chlorine to argue it simply shouldn't be used at all, they'd be mostly correct. You use fluorine because you want ultimate stability, forever chemicals. It's almost always a lazy solution creating bigger problems down the line.
Depends on your time scale. (Score:2)
Remediating any significant amount of soil is a lost cause
Not entirely true since it's bioaccumulative, All that is needed is to put a filter in one common part of the system (i.e. water) for an extended period (centuries) without adding more than you are removing from the environment. It be expensive but when stretched across time, that makes it doable and thus not too expensive. The key is to prevent anyone from adding more to the environment.
You use fluorine because you want ultimate stability, forever chemicals. It's almost always a lazy solution creating bigger problems down the line.
Definitely sounds like something we shouldn't be using.
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out doing something right is very often more expensive in the short run, but universally much cheaper and often extremely cheaper in the long run. But we have super-rich assholes that must get even richer, so doing things right is not an option.
A Better Option (Score:2)
"Do you think it's a good idea to stop smoking?"
"Naw dawg. They have oxygen tanks now. You'll be fine."
Facepalm (Score:2)
Seriously? (Score:1)
Perfect is the enemy of good. [wikipedia.org] Nobody claimed this was a silver bullet.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is PFSA is the dust in the environment how do they proposed to address light airborne particulate and heavy particulate like from friction applications eg tire on road wear. What are we going to scoop up all the dirt and topsoil and then run these processes?
At this point people walking around with p-100 full face masks complete with organic vapor cartridges are starting to look like the sane ones.
Re: Facepalm (Score:3)
Re: Facepalm (Score:2)
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Mother nature has a cure (Score:1)
If you can wait another 5-10 billion years there won't be any "forever" chemicals on Earth, because, well, no Earth. Maybe [scientificamerican.com].
Scale and efficiency? (Score:2)
An approach known as supercritical water oxidation is one of the more developed technologies, ... It involves heating and pressurizing water to a specific point that creates the ideal conditions to break every carbon fluorine bond, ... or HALT, [that] involves adding a low-cost chemical reagent such as sodium hydroxide to super-heated liquid water....
I can't imagine either of those scaling easily or being energy efficient. Imagine trying to do that to the entire public water supply, unless they think we should all just drink bottled water... If you're going that far, how about just doing electrolysis then recombining the H and O2 -- and maybe save some for fuel?
Take off and nuke the site from orbit (Score:2)
its the only way to be sure.
Why aren't supercritical fluids used more often ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Many plastics will dissolve in supercritical CO2"
I've never seen CO2 as a liquid. It goes straight from solid (dry ice) to gas at room temperature and pressure.
Re: Why aren't supercritical fluids used more ofte (Score:2)
It's not a liquid exactly, it's a supercritical fluid. It has properties of both liquids and gasses. It does not exist at atmospheric pressure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen CO2 as a liquid. It goes straight from solid (dry ice) to gas at room temperature and pressure.
Indeed and that's why you haven't seen it.
https://www.researchgate.net/f... [researchgate.net]
It doesn't have a liquid phase at 1atm, but it does over about 10.
Harsh conditions (Score:2)
As other user commented, that methods use harsh conditions and cannot be used to address the PFAS already circulating in living organisms. The domain of application is for industries like drink water treatment.
PFOA and PFOS, the oldests PFAS, have long half-lives in the human body. Assuming one can stop being contaminated by that chemicals, it would take several years to excrete half of blood-circulating PFOA and PFOS. The only method we have for blood decontamination for now is blood let.
Have we learned nothing? (Score:1)
After asbestos, leaded gas and CFC ozone hole, humanity continues to shit in their bed.