Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth Science

The Most Promising Ways to Destroy 'Forever Chemicals' (msn.com) 85

Posted by EditorDavid from the nothing-lasts-forever dept.
"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.

The Most Promising Ways to Destroy 'Forever Chemicals' More | Reply

The Most Promising Ways to Destroy 'Forever Chemicals'

Comments Filter:

  • 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)

      by algaeman ( 600564 ) on Saturday May 17, 2025 @02:54PM (#65383497)
      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.

      • 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).

        • Except someone would have to pay for that. Meanwhile, the Federal government just eliminated the laws requiring municipalities to monitor some of the forever chemicals and delayed implementation for six years for others.

          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.

      • 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.

      • 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 think the better approach would be a more controlled and even high-heat source. Perhaps the world's stockpile of thermonuclear weapons, coordinated in just such a way to bring about maximum effective high temperatures over most land masses. I'm certain it would be effective in eliminating most of the man-made pollution we see today. Eventually.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      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)

    by znrt ( 2424692 ) on Saturday May 17, 2025 @02:44PM (#65383487)

    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.

    • You're sceptic?!? Go see a doctor!

    • Proper disposal would have fixed all of these problems but for some reason people have this magical thinking if you put it into a stream or throw it down an incline that it somehow disappears or something. Putting it directly into a stream is about the best way to maximize contamination into the environment no matter what’s being dumped.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by znrt ( 2424692 )

        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.

        • Putting it into storage containers that are then shipped to a geologically stable place away from aquifers is a thing and can be done. It’s just expensive.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          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)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        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)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      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)

    by Slashythenkilly ( 7027842 ) on Saturday May 17, 2025 @02:56PM (#65383503)
    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. https://youtu.be/SC2eSujzrUY?s... [youtu.be]

    • 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.

      • Always gonna be a know it like yourself who cant see the forest for the trees, comparing apples to oranges, relying on the almighty strawman to support your argument which boils down to "we cant." BS. If you had watched the video, you would know that Dupont went out of the way to lie, cheat, and steal at the expense of peoples' lives just to stay in business.

        • I know nothing about this. I just happened to watch the video on the weekend, the one you cited, the one where they clearly describe the problem of stopping production. The fact that Dupont are a piece of shit in the creation of a product we now depend on for many industries doesn't change this conclusion in the slightest.

          WATCH YOUR OWN VIDEO.

  • Yeah. Right. (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday May 17, 2025 @03:02PM (#65383513)

    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>

    • 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)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      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.

  • 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.

    • 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)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        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.

        • But we have super-rich assholes that must get even richer, so doing things right is not an option.

          You're not wrong but I don't think they are the core drivers. The problem is systemic and ultimately algorithmic.

          * Publicly traded companies are fundamentally flawed in that profit is above all else and the highest priority.
          * Companies (and the ultra-rich) are allowed to freely participate in politics by pouring unlimited funding into Political Action Committees and lobbying.
          * Political Action Committees promote or demote candidates resulting in selection bias in favor of business interests and the mindset

  • "Do you think it's a good idea to stop smoking?"
    "Naw dawg. They have oxygen tanks now. You'll be fine."

  • 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?

    • Perfect is the enemy of good. [wikipedia.org] Nobody claimed this was a silver bullet.

    • 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.

      • Its not that insane. I run a 3gal distiller in the kitchen for the cooking water and stuff for household plants. everyday I pull roughly 1 tablespoon of a white rubbery buildup layered on top of the mineral deposits. In addition is something else I cannot identify -- a light grayish powder like substance that lines the walls.

    • Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  • 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].

  • 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?

  • its the only way to be sure.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • After asbestos, leaded gas and CFC ozone hole, humanity continues to shit in their bed.

  • No strategy using supercritical water is gonna work at the scales required at address the problem. At least, not at any scale beyond bottles drinking water. Getting water to supercritical requires heating it to nearly 400C, which is NOT CHEAP. You want to apply this to a lake-sized reservoir? You’re gonna to get all that water to 4 times the boiling point, Guess where all that energy comes from? Hint - not sustainable sources. Thermal energy comes from burning hydrocarbons, and we’re doing too m

Slashdot Top Deals

What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.

Close