Asphalt Additive Could Continuously Keep Roads Ice-Free (newatlas.com) 54
Scientists from China's Hebei University of Science and Technology have developed an ice-melting additive for asphalt that could remain active for years. New Atlas reports: [The researchers started] out by developing a chloride-free acetate-based salt. Such salts are considerably less environmentally harmful than chlorides, they're less corrosive to steel and other materials, plus they work at lower temperatures. The researchers proceeded to mix the salt with a surfactant, silicon dioxide, sodium bicarbonate and blast furnace slag (which has also been used in salt-proof concrete), resulting in a fine powder. Particles of that powder were then coated with a polymer solution, producing microcapsules. Finally, the scientists replaced some of the mineral filler in a conventional asphalt mixture with those capsules.
When the special asphalt was tested on the off-ramp of a highway, it was found not only to continuously melt the snow that fell upon it, but also to lower the freezing point of water from 0C (32F) down to -21C (-6F). What's more, based on lab tests, the researchers estimate that a 5-cm (2-in)-thick slab of the pavement would continue to release its salt capsules for seven to eight years, keeping the road clear that whole time. The study was recently published in the journal ACS Omega.
When the special asphalt was tested on the off-ramp of a highway, it was found not only to continuously melt the snow that fell upon it, but also to lower the freezing point of water from 0C (32F) down to -21C (-6F). What's more, based on lab tests, the researchers estimate that a 5-cm (2-in)-thick slab of the pavement would continue to release its salt capsules for seven to eight years, keeping the road clear that whole time. The study was recently published in the journal ACS Omega.
Re: But it does leech, then? (Score:1)
How does the environmental cost of that stack up to the current solution of salting the roads?
Less so but more subtly and pervasively.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I'm so tired I read "ACS Omega" as "OCS Amiga" and wondered if this was an all-time record for old news on Slashdot.
Less harmful doesn't mean NOT harmful (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially when cars and the environment are going to be exposed 365 days a year.
Oh...and it's encapsulated in polymers. So...for those that are concerned...more "micro plastics".
I mean, I'm not a hardcore environmentalist...but, it seems like there are one or two issues being glossed over.
Re: Less harmful doesn't mean NOT harmful (Score:1)
Easy - Biden was sold as "the only guy that could beat Trump".
That was how Biden was "sold" to the voters... Every other advantage his team tried to put out there was quickly shot-down:
"Decades of experience" - 70+ years old! So's his opponent
"Experience on world stage" - Gates told us that Biden was wrong on EVERY major international issue.
Competent - Barrack Obama famously said "never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up"
All the Democrats had was "he can beat Trump" - and his agreement to nomina
Re: (Score:2)
Hey dumbshit, no one really likes Biden. People voted for Biden because Trump is a shitty human.
What a coincidence. The cycle before that most of trump's voters didn't like him, either, but voted for him because they thought Hillary was, not just a s#!++%, but an actively dangerous, human.
(For starters: Many thought that just ONE MORE Democrat supreme court appointment would have, in their view, crashed the republic into a Stalinist-style disaster. That got him a lot of votes that normally would have gon
Re: Less harmful doesn't mean NOT harmful (Score:1)
Democrats have a habit of (effectively) creating laws outside the legislative branch by convincing 5 people in robes to do what they can't do in congress.
A simple read of the Constitution makes clear Abortion is a state issue, not federal - even RBG said as much when she said Roe v Wade was poorly decided - but a handful of old white men invented the right to an abortion out of whole cloth, and it took 50years to right that wrong.
There were more than a few democrats that wanted to punish people that chose n
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough...and I read your other comment below.
Re: (Score:1)
Polymers and Plastics are not the same thing. A plastic is a polymer, but a polymer is not necessarily a plastic.
"Complex carbohydrates," for example, are polymers. The octane in gasoline is a polymer. Your body is full of polymers.
A polymer is just a chain of like molecules.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. DNA and RNA are polymers (of phosphorylated sugars, with "bases" as side-chains). Proteins are polymers, with various amino acids as the monomers.
With what molecule as a monomer?
Octanes are long chain molecules with a repetitive structure, agreed. But they're not polymers. A closer analogue would be the structure of "long chain fatty acids", which are long molecules (actually, trios of long molecules, hung off a triglyceride base, s
Stupid. (Score:1)
Less harmful doesn't mean NOT harmful
Correct. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Oh...and it's encapsulated in polymers. So...for those that are concerned...more "micro plastics".
Actually, withe the scale they are working with it would be nano-plastics. What's interesting is that plastics on this level will break down relatively quickly in the natural environment, especially with UV exposure. The resiliency of plastics depends on being bonded with more plastic.
I mean, I'm not a hardcore environmentalist...
With your severely lacking knowledge of scientific processes and scaremongering, you would fit right in with most environmentalist groups.
Re: (Score:2)
What's interesting is that plastics on this level will break down relatively quickly in the natural environment, especially with UV exposure
Yes, but into *what*? Where do those decomposition products go and what do they do?
According to the paper, the plastic used is acrylonitrile styrene acrylate. This is a common thermoplastic used in building sidings, automotive parts, and 3D printing. It's decomposition products are acrylonitrile, styrene, and butyl acrylate. Of these butyl acrylate is probably close to completely biologically benign. Acrylonitrile and styrene are clearly not. Given the widespread use of this plastic it's certain that
Re: (Score:2)
What's interesting is that plastics on this level will break down relatively quickly in the natural environment, especially with UV exposure
Yes, but into *what*? Where do those decomposition products go and what do they do?
I think it's amusing you ask this of particular additive but haven't inquired about road or tire decomposition in general because they are all being shredded by the same mechanism: abrasion. It's also important to note that this isn't the first polymer let alone the first microplastic contributor because plastic makes up about 24% of the modern tire. I'm not a chemist, so i can't tell you exactly how ASA breaks down but I can tell you that if this is your biggest concern then you are missing the forest for
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be fond of assuming people around you are ignorant. I am of course aware that road surfaces abrade, and that tire wear generates microplastic pollution. Neither of which has anything to do with whether this thing is a good idea, which it may be after some consideration and tweaking.
Tire wear particle (TWP) research is still in its infancy; it's been a hot topic for several years and if you look at papers the research is still pretty crude. It's pretty much focusing on the establishing that TWP
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be fond of assuming people around you are ignorant.
Not really, your behavior simply reflected an apparent lack of awareness. I'm glad to read that you are up to speed.
we don't really know much about what these compounds actually *do* in the environment, just that there's reason to be concerned.
I'm not saying you shouldn't investigate or be concerned, I'm saying you shouldn't dismiss a less harmful solution because it's not a perfect solution. Perfect is the enemy of good.
As for Greenpeace, if nuclear power were as profitable as, say, tobacco, Greenpeace would be just spitting into the wind.
What you fail to acknowledge is that Greenpeace's effort are what makes it less profitable. A substantial part of the expense in building a nuclear plant isn't actually building it, it's dealing with frivolous lega
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the constant exposure to the material (instead of seasonal) and the fact that it only lasts "about 5 years" seem to be serious drawbacks - I would not want to re-surface a road every 5 years.
I find it bad enough when they resurface roads every 15 years..
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the constant exposure to the material (instead of seasonal) and the fact that it only lasts "about 5 years" seem to be serious drawbacks - I would not want to re-surface a road every 5 years.
I find it bad enough when they resurface roads every 15 years..
Oomph - granted in China it's a bit different regarding liability, but if we started something like this, and didn't renew the roads every 5 years, there'd be hella liability.
Another consideration - what effect does this have on traction? IIRC there were experiments with a similar technology some years ago. I looked for the paper a bit with no luck.
It used Calcium chloride embedded in the asphalt. Yes, it kept the roads ice free, but it also eliminated traction about as well as Ice eliminates traction
Re: Less harmful doesn't mean NOT harmful (Score:1)
I would not want to re-surface a road every 5 years.
You must live in southern AZ. In colder areas, the roads don't last that long anyhow; drive through Glenwood Canyon sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh...and it's encapsulated in polymers. So...for those that are concerned...more "micro plastics".
This isn't anything new. All bitumen used for roads is finished and made suitable for the environment (temperature ranges) by adding a variety of polymers to it in different mixes depending on the purpose.
Are you fucking nuts? (Score:2, Informative)
Plastic microcapsules that are released into the environment on purpose?
Re:Are you fucking nuts? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are you fucking nuts? (Score:4, Informative)
TFS [acs.org][tudy] says that the polymer is styrene-acrylic-acrylate [safecosmetics.org] copolymer P.
Re:Are you fucking nuts? (Score:5, Informative)
Which is only really dangerous when used in confined spaces, Again, used in plastic production but not actually plastic. As per the articles you linked, styrene-acrylic-acrylate is not considered harmful of itself but the styrene content may be. Styrene breaks down quickly. Exposure in e.g cosmetics is considered harmful because it's direct exposure before any chance of it breaking down, but in this use it's much less harmful because it breaks down in 1-2 days so no more chance of harm than any other road-covering material.
All materials used in road surfacing are harmful to some degree. This is if anything less harmful than most of the particulate matter coming off roads because it breaks down faster. The posts on this about it being plastic and therefore harmful are misguided. The styrene-acrylic-acrylate is there to prevent it breaking down too quickly to be useful and is not harmful. It becomes harmful when it's broken down and releases the styrene but only for 1 or 2 days, much less than the rest of the particulate matter released from normal road use which is just as, if not more, harmful
Re: (Score:2)
If I were worried about acute medical problems in anyone, it would be the people who build the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, used in plastic production but not actually plastic.
"Acrylonitrile styrene acrylate, also called acrylic styrene acrylonitrile, is an amorphous thermoplastic"
Dunno man Sounds pretty plasticy.
Also:
"A plastic by the name of acrylates copolymer, on the label of several body wash, cosmetic and cleaning products, may be harming human health and the environment. Massey University Political Ecology Research Centre co-director Dr Trisia Farrelly said products containing acrylates copolymer carried health risks, yet they fell outside of the current microbead ban."
"Th
Re: (Score:2)
Which is only really dangerous when used in confined spaces, Again, used in plastic production but not actually plastic.
Under what definition says that styrene acrylate copolymer is not plastic?
I mean - okay. Liquid styrene is not plastic. But maybe the wikipedia page on plastics should be corrected - styrene shows up there a lot. Can my confusion that styrene acrylate copolymer is not a plastic be resolved?
Re: Are you fucking nuts? (Score:1)
Which is only really dangerous when used in confined spaces...
But is nonetheless not what you were attempting to claim until you were called out.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be worth noting that a large cocktail of polymers are used in bitumen for road production anyway. This isn't making the situation any worse than it already is.
+1 for global warming (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Listen, fuckwits who think polymers are plastics.
They are not, necessarily.
That is a real tapdance there, person who can't even post as themselves, yet is apparently the final word on what is and is not.
For you see, you are suffering a huge rageboner about the minutiae of the definition of plastic - well, okay fine, Is it a really awesome thing to embed this not a necessarily a plastic in roads?
Your rageboner over the definition of plastic is just a sidetrip away from the topic - and pointless in the end.
Re: (Score:3)
Listen, nitwit, the word "plastics" is ill defined, but it generally means an artificial material that can be shaped or molded and is made of polymers. The article specifically uses the word polymer to avoid calling it plastic, but that's what it is. These "microcapsules" are not "10-20 molecules" long sugars, and you trying to pass them off as a harmless practically natural component is manipulative and deceptive. The materials used are sturdy enough to last for years, as them leaching out over several yea
Came for the FUD; wasn't disappointed (Score:3)
The moment I read this story, my immediate thought was that there was going to be some killjoy spouting off about potential environmental impact even though they have zero understanding of the whole thing (though they think they do) and I wasn't disappointed. What surprised me was how quickly that appeared. Some people have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to something that would appear to affect the environment to the point of potentially killing off a great idea without ever really studying it. Tsk tsk, Chicken Littles.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The moment I read this story, my immediate thought was that there was going to be some killjoy spouting off about potential environmental impact even though they have zero understanding of the whole thing
People often spout off on both sides of any issue with little to no understanding of the whole thing. And that tendency is not just confined to Slashdotters... it's humanity as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no...I'm way more concerned about it destroying my cars, than the environment.
Sure, the roads are clear on snowy days...but on dry days, cars are dusted with it...on rainy days they're spattered with it.
It's not suffering through a few applications of salt in the winter....it's exposure every day of the year, despite it supposedly being less corrosive.
"Less corrosive" isn't "not corrosive".
Regarding the polymers/plastics/not-plastics............it just seemed like it was going to be a very obvious a
Notable: China innovated rather than stealing!? (Score:2)
Just sayin.
Re: Notable: China innovated rather than stealing! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. People need to get out of this mindset of the Chinese simply copying products created in the West. It still happens all the time, of course, but China is well on track to be the #1 country in R&D in every... single... industry.
It's a numbers game, and their numbers keep getting better. They're going to be the economic superpower. It's inevitable, and it's coming sooner than most people expect.
Or you could just ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... put on tire chains.
That is a frigging horrible idea for many reasons:
a) Not everyone lives in Alaska, most people live in places where for a significant part of the year snow cover on roads is slight. So slight that it gets melted by a simple application of chloride.
b) When you don't have thick snow / ice cover chains absolutely wreak both the underlying road as well as your tires.
c) You need to have them, when you need them, and need to apply them which is non trivial for many road users.
Leave the chains for people living i
Re: (Score:2)
That is a frigging horrible idea for many reasons:
Yes, it is. And it underlines my statement about not driving when you don't have to. If it snows infrequently where you live, just wait it out. Stay off the roads.
Re: (Score:2)
Neat concept... (Score:1)
Re: Neat concept... (Score:1)
roads aren't replaced every 7 or 8 years
While roads are typically resurfaced and possibly around once every 7 to 8 years here in the northeast
Reminds me of a previous "ice free roads" scheme. (Score:2)
This reminds me of a previous scheme to make roads ice-free, back from the early days of nuclear power: Mix nuclear waste into the paving to cause them to be warm enough to melt the ice off.
No, really! They actually thought about that until they had enough evidence on how dangerous radiation actually was.
There was also one to make fluorescent lights with a little radioactive material, so you didn't need electricity. THAT one looked like it might have such low radiation outside the lamp that it would have
Sidewalks? (Score:2)