The Most Promising Ways to Destroy 'Forever Chemicals' (msn.com)
- Reference: 0177576093
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/05/17/0645218/the-most-promising-ways-to-destroy-forever-chemicals
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-most-promising-ways-to-destroy-forever-chemicals/ar-AA1EGr8V
> "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 [2]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
[3]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.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-most-promising-ways-to-destroy-forever-chemicals/ar-AA1EGr8V
[2] https://www.minesnewsroom.com/news/colorado-school-mines-partners-aquagga-commercialize-pfas-destruction-technology
[3] https://innovationcenter.msu.edu/enspired-solutions-to-forever-chemicals/
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 ...
Break them down but... (Score:3)
What about not producing them in the first place. They are already in every living creature on earth as well as every habitable location. Companies like Dupont simply acknowledge, reformulate, and rename for the sake of profit and it has to stop. [1]https://youtu.be/SC2eSujzrUY?s... [youtu.be]
[1] https://youtu.be/SC2eSujzrUY?si=bDukqtc-Mw32HgGX
Yeah. Right. (Score:2)
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.
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.
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)
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?
Seriously? (Score:1)
[1]Perfect is the enemy of good. [wikipedia.org] Nobody claimed this was a silver bullet.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_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. [1]Maybe [scientificamerican.com].
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sun-will-eventually-engulf-earth-maybe/
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)
Maybe a chemist can answer that, but why aren't supercritical fluids used more often when recycling garbage ? Things like water, CO2 and others have astonishing dissolving properties when at their triple-point. Many plastics will dissolve in supercritical CO2, as do most organic matter.
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:4, Insightful)
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.
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).