Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Smog Busting Paint Breaks Down Noxious Gasses

Posted by michael on from the greenwash dept.

jlechem writes "New Scientist is reporting a story about a new paint that can absorb noxious gas. According to the article the new paint is called Ecopaint. The substance is designed to reduce levels of the nitrogen oxides, collectively known as the NOx gases, which cause respiratory problems and trigger smog production. The paint's base is polysiloxane, a silicon-based polymer. Embedded in it are spherical nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and calcium carbonate 30 nanometres wide. Because the particles are so small, the paint is clear, but pigment can be added. The first paint to go on sale will of course be white."

37 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Saturated? by dolo666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure this sounds like great news. Here comes the science...

    What happens when the paint is saturated? Sure it works to a point, but will additional coats of paint over revitalize production, or are we looking at a long term problem when the paint fails and begins soaking up noxious chemicals that could leak and cause a really nasty effect on the environment? Furthermore, did anyone read this sentence in the article and become slightly shocked? "The acid is then either washed away in rain, or neutralised by the alkaline calcium carbonate particles, producing harmless quantities of carbon dioxide, water and calcium nitrate, which will also wash away."

    So it either causes acid rain, or it cleans the environment? :-)

    1. Re:Saturated? by rasafras · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it could possibly do more harm than is present. After all, if the NOxes aren't in the paint, they're in the environment around it. It may concentrate them more, but I would imagine that it shouldn't be a problem. If I recall correctly, soil actually has micro-organisms capable of breaking down these chemicals. It sounds like a good plan to me, but like many others, I fear that it won't get enough of a push to catch on in the mainstream.

      --
      webpage
    2. Re:Saturated? by hcg50a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it continues removing the pollution, but instead of the nitric acid reacting with the carbonate to produce carbon dioxide and water, nitric acid just oozes down your hood and door, taking the paint with it.

      --
      HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
      11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
    3. Re:Saturated? by dolo666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Again, most of the acid will end up in the oceans."

      I just saw Nemo with the family recently. Doesn't this statement distrub you a little?

      Think of the reefs, the fish, the entire ocean ecosystem. Maybe in 50 years it's okay, but by that time, we could have many layers of this embedded in dumps, landfills and the like.

      The solution has always been to eliminate emissions altogether with technology such as energy fueled vehicles with zero emisions.

      We can't keep placating the environment.

    4. Re:Saturated? by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Why the hell does everyone focus on SUVs as the only vehicles that pollute a lot? How about mini-vans, full size vans, pickup trucks, RVs, semi trucks, delivery trucks, and people who just drive a lot? Don't they pollute as well?

      People who hate SUVs hate the typical 'SUV lifestyle' more than they hate pollution itself. Some SUVs are actually more fuel efficient than some cars.

      Besides, would these people really want the government deciding what size vehicle they get to drive?

    5. Re:Saturated? by realdpk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason people are upset about SUVs is that the folks who buy SUVs are using them to do activities that would be better done in higher fuel-economy cars, most of the time. That is, going to the grocery store, going to/from work, etc. It's incredibly wasteful.

      They're not complaining about delivery trucks and etc is because very few people drive those. They're a smaller problem, relative to the benefits their drivers receive.

    6. Re:Saturated? by Spoing · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1. Why the hell does everyone focus on SUVs as the only vehicles that pollute a lot? How about mini-vans, full size vans, pickup trucks, RVs, semi trucks, delivery trucks, and people who just drive a lot? Don't they pollute as well?

      Someone might say that those other vehicles serve a reasonable function most of the time so possibly the polution they cause is somewhat justified while with the SUVs it is not.

      That someone might see these facts and use them to justify bashing SUVs, though that someone ... would not be me.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    7. Re:Saturated? by n0nsensical · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aren't trucks and buses responsible for most of the particulate emissions (aka smog) in big cities even though they are fewer in numbers than cars? I don't really know if this is true, I just remember reading something like that.

    8. Re:Saturated? by dustmite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No.

      Of course one bus will generate more smog than one car, or even perhaps five or ten cars. But remember, for each bus carrying thirty to fifty people, that's at least 20 to 40 cars that aren't being used to fulfill those individuals' transport needs. A bus generates less pollution that 20 cars, and if there were no buses, those people would need to use cars. So just looking at straight numbers (e.g. saying "the busses and trucks actually generate twice as much smog as the cars" is very misleading, it's as if there is an underlying implication that if you took away the buses the number of cars would remain the same. And yes, there are people who would deliberately 'twist' the facts to favour the notion of individuals driving cars rather than using public transport (e.g. here in South Africa we just culturally "like" driving our own cars, so every morning and evening there are traffic jams into and out of the cities, with hundreds of cars that have only one person in them.)

    9. Re:Saturated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OK, let's say it will all end up in the ocean. It will make the ocean slightly more acidic. But, you know, the Earth's oceans have 362,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in them. (Yes, really.) If 10 billion people each dumped a million gallons of highly concentrated strong acid into the oceans, that would still be only one gallon of acid for every 36,200 gallons of water. If everyone on the planet dumped one million gallons of 1 molar H2SO4 in there, it would be diluted to 0.00002 M.

      By the way, "energy fueled vehicles with zero emisions"? WTF does that mean? I guess it's as opposed to those vehicles we are using now, which don't require energy?

    10. Re:Saturated? by Chainsaw+Messiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeap, SUVs are a political issue not an enviromental one. Apparently the standard of living in the US is such that people no longer have to worry about their own lives, they can now spend all their time telling other people what they should be doing.

    11. Re:Saturated? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Aren't trucks and buses responsible for most of the particulate emissions

      That might be true on a per vehicle basis, but not likely on a total pollution output. Still, it's missing the point. It's not like the bus drivers and truck drivers can do the same thing with a fuel-efficient car. The size and carrying capacity of those vehicles are required to do the things they are doing, and indeed improvements in fuel efficiency for buses and trucks is desirable even by those who use them. The thing stopping these users from being less polluting is (a) technology is just making such options available now, and (b) more efficiency is expensive (for them). So they may pollute, but there is reasonable justification.

      SUV's on the other hand, are entirely unnecessary for most of what they're used for (commuting, groceries, etc.). These things are better done in more fuel-efficient cars, which are actually cheaper. This is the opposite of the bus/truck problem, economics should drive SUV drivers to cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars. It's mainly status symbol, machismo, whatever, that generally keeps them from getting "better" vehicles. The difference with SUVs is that there is no reasonable justification of why they are necessary in most cases. (Yes, sometimes they are necessary and justifiable, but that usually involves living in rural and snowy areas.)

      I'm no anti-SUV zealot, but there is clear reasoning why (most) SUVs are bad and unnecessary. Some SUV owners use the "stop telling people how to run their lives" argument, which is basically equivalent to saying "I should be allowed to blow cigarette smoke in your face if I want to, it's a free country". Pollution, health, and effects on environment are everybody's concern.

    12. Re:Saturated? by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's mainly status symbol, machismo, whatever

      Or *marketing*.

      And the reason that SUVs are marketed so much is because federal emissions and safety regulations which apply to cars don't apply to SUVs (they are considered to be "trucks").

      People can drive their SUVs all they want (though I sure wish they would drive them with every ounce of care, if not more, than they put into driving smaller cars). But they should be regulated by the government the same as normal cars are, because that's what they nearly always get used for.

  2. So convenient by veg_all · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When your house has absorbed all the noxious gasses it can handle, simply declare the neighborhood low-rent and move to a new subdivision painted with a fresh coat of Ecopaint!

    --
    grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
  3. And allegedly... by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This stuff is safe with no side effects. Won't cause cancer in humans. Safe if it gets into the groundwater, sewer, and streams? Tested for a long enough period of time in a wide enough number of uses to prove it is as safe and effective as normal paint base?

    Just like when they used steel pipes in houses (which corrode from the inside out) rather than lead?

    No thanks. I'll wait for proof before I paint even a bench with that stuff.

    1. Re:And allegedly... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And don't forget Aluminum wiring. Works great... until the aluminum oxide builds up on the electrical connections.

      Hey, and that crap they threw into gasoline, yup that was safe.

      Asbestos was a really nice fire retardent material. Too bad it had a tendency to create dust that causes lung cancer.

      And to cap it all off, let's have 3 cheers for air bags and anti-lock brakes. If you are a small-fry like my wife and myself, you too can be killed in a 10mph impact by a piece of safety equipment! Anti-Lock brakes, they actually increase breaking distance and if you pump them (like anyone over the age of 26 was trained to do) you are screwed.

      You really start to understand why people in ages past were so resistant to change.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:And allegedly... by Mr.+Shiny+And+New · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anti-Lock brakes, they actually increase breaking distance and if you pump them (like anyone over the age of 26 was trained to do) you are screwed.

      Anti-lock breaks increase stopping distance over properly-executed threshold breaking, but I think it's terribly naive to claim that the general population is good at threshold breaking. Anti-lock breaks are a lot better for stopping than non-anti-lock breaks, if you lock your wheels. It's that whole static- versus dynamic-friction thingy.

      And as for airbags and seatbelts causing injuries in crashes, it's true. They can. But guess what: it's statistically impossible for auto-makers to install saftey features that protect every possible driver from every possible impact. (well, the one saftey feature that would work is the "car-with-no-engine" feature. It never gets into accidents). So clearly, if airbags and seatbelts save more lives than they cost, they are worth having. And if you're so small that your airbag is always a danger to you, you can have it disabled (I have a friend, who is a dwarf, and her airbag is disabled, with a key, so that if a normal-sized person drives her car, it can be turned back on).

      Just because a potential technology has a downside doesn't mean it's worthless and we should shun it. Nothing is free; just do the cost-benefit analysis and pick whichever has the best ratio.

    3. Re:And allegedly... by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Titanium Dioxide *is* used in sunscreen, so it has been reasonably well researched, and is moderately safe to the human body.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  4. A couple foreseen problems with this... by eightheadsofdoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now, given the nature of the pain to absorb noxious chemicals, wouldn't we be seeing a problem of entire neighborhoods where the houses are literally big cubes of smog? Secondly, and this may be scientifically wrong, because it is just absorbing the NOx gases, not necessarily the smog itself, but isn't there a chance of discoloration of the paint after application? Would that beautiful white house become LA-brown within a couple years?

  5. Smog by TurnerK12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A paint that soaks up smog? I think we need to stop driving cars that pollute the air in the first place.
    ---
    http://spaceruckus.web1000.com
    These guys are putting together a free 3D action/adventure game.

    --
    Free Wii Points
  6. Could this be used on pollution sources? by catscan2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could this paint also be applied directly on pollution sources, such as on the inside of car tail pipes or the inside surface of smoke stacks?

    That would seem like a more logical place to apply this paint, though applying it to roads and other surfaces probably doesn't hurt, either.

    1. Re:Could this be used on pollution sources? by kcelery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It'll do the trick only in the presence of ultra violet light with wavelength shorter than 400nm. Sunlight contains a small percentage of such UV light. For areas within the car tail pipe, ask Scotty.

  7. What about noxious gasses in production? by Fex303 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'd be interested to know if this paint can neutralise as much pollutant as is generated in its production.

    I seem to recall TO2 being a fairly nasty chemical to produce, using lots of Chlorine in production, etc. (Of course, high-school chem was a while back...) Is using the paint a net benefit to the environment? If not, what's the point?

  8. Paint that *causes* corrosion? by enosys · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Paint is often supposed to protect surfaces from corrosion. In this case the paint collects nitrous oxide gasses and makes nitric acid, a very corrosive chemical. The paint is porous so we can have nitric acid within the paint, perhaps even close to the surface you want to protect. Now will that nitrous acid destroy whatever the paint was supposed to protect? Perhaps a good coat of different, non-porous paint below this paint will protect the surface, but if there are any deep scratches at least they may corrode much faster due to nitric acid.

    1. Re:Paint that *causes* corrosion? by Night+Goat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Naturally, you wouldn't use this paint on things that it would corrode. I don't think this is something to lose sleep over- the paint would have its recommended uses and warnings on the label of the paint can.

      I agree with some of the other posts before me though: is the benefit of reduced nitrous oxide in the air outweighed by the other possible environmental dangers? I hope this goes through a lot of testing by independent groups before it hits the market.

    2. Re:Paint that *causes* corrosion? by JoeBuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They mix in calcium carbonate to neutralize the acid. But the article says that the calcium carbonate runs out in about five years, and then the acid discolors the paint (and presumably corrodes whatever is under it).

      The calcium nitrate will eventually run off into the nearest body of water, and excess nitrates in water cause algal blooms and can kill off fish. However, I doubt if the amount of nitrates from this source will be significant compared to the large amount of fertilizer runoff.

  9. It doesn't get saturated by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In a typical 0.3-millimetre layer, there will be enough calcium carbonate to last five years in a heavily polluted city, says Robert McIntyre of the British company Millennium Chemicals, based in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, which developed the paint. When the carbonate has been exhausted, the titanium dioxide will continue to break down NOx, but the acid this produces will discolour the paint,

    If you read the article you'll see a nice and practically useless image where it shows that NOx is broken down to harmless stuff like water and oxygen. Don't ask me HOW exactly. Anyways, once the calcium carbonate runs out, the nitric acid will not be nuetralized. ( good read up on a chem textbook regarding bases ( like calcium carbonate ) and acids, especially how they affect eachother ) Having a whole load of acid building up inside your paint isnt a good thing but according to the article it will just discolour the paint. While the Titanium Oxide will happily continue to absorb more NOx and thus create more acid.

    So basically, nowadays you have to paint once every 5 years because the smog attacks the paint. Now you have to paint once every 5 years because the paint attacks the smog.

    --
    Hate me!
  10. Way Cool stuff by Khisanthus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Along with the already mentioned rtfa, I should mention I am a chemist/materials...The real concern about these materials is the slowly accumulating data saying that there MIGHT be unforeseen medical issues with the particles used in the paint. As a substance, its invisible. TiOx is only White when its big enough. These are an order of magnitude smaller...totally transparent as long as the matrix material is. Otherwise: over time these materials will last longer and longer if they are used in a widespread manner as they will be able to bind the local discolorants and make them scoopable essentially....what some might see as a discolored paint should properly be considered as a akin to kitty litter. Replace when used.

  11. A bit like asbestos perhaps??? by madmarcel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The article states that the noxious chemicals do not build up in the paint...but I'm not quite convinced of that. BTW I'm pretty sure a build-up of acidic chemicals on the outside of your building is not a good thing ;-P

    "Ah yeah, these skyscrapers last for about 5 years and then they melt...dunno why though..."

    But seriously...

    I'm wondering whether or not after 5 or 10 years you would get scenes similar to asbestos-removal hype:
    People in protective suits very carefully remove the (toxic) paint from the outside of the building so that it can be demolished 'safely'.

    Of course you could just paint over it...but then you would get layer upon layer of (highly?) toxic paint on the outside of the building - which would guarantee the 'protective suit' scenario :-o

    Better to attack the source and stop polluting in the first place.

    For example, here in NZ there is no exhaust-gas emmission-testing for vehicles, like they have in (some of) Europe - the result is that on some days Auckland has a worse smog problem then eh...mexico-city.

  12. Environmental Problems by yintercept · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that the paint is trying to address environmental problems will probably make people have even greater worries about what chemicals it puts into the ground water etc..

    People should realize that all paints and coatings end up in the environment.

    I admit this is intriguing science. The most interesting thing about pollution reducing coatings to work, there will need to be a unique formula for each city. I live in a city where the worst pollution days happen in the dead of winter with temperature around 30 degrees farenheit. Other cities get bad during the heat.

    It is an interesting science, but not a one size fits all science.

  13. crazy by ezonme · · Score: 1, Insightful

    this sh*t just doesn't make sense.. if you paint something with this it will become coated with toxic waste.. they'd better off by making a device that capture these noxious gases and store the toxic waste safely. Let paint do it's: protect stuff, not endanger.

    1. Re:crazy by tupshin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      RTFA...the substance actually breaks down the NOx molecules, converting them into a relatively harmless form:
      The polysiloxane base is porous enough to allow NOx to diffuse though it and adhere to the titanium dioxide particles. The particles absorb ultraviolet radiation in sunlight and use this energy to convert NOx to nitric acid.

      The acid is then either washed away in rain, or neutralised by the alkaline calcium carbonate particles, producing harmless quantities of carbon dioxide, water and calcium nitrate, which will also wash away.


      -Tupshin

  14. Your post brings up an interesting questions by mcc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What happens if you huff this paint? Can the vapors from the paint absorb noxious gases as well as the paint itself can, and if so, is it enough to cancel out the fact the paint fumes are themselves noxious? Inquiring minds want to know.

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
    1. Re:Your post brings up an interesting questions by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually probably nothing, though the stabilzing agent is probably a mild respritory irritant. However in labratory tests, nanoparticles have been shown to be comparitably more distructive compared to their regular sized bretheren. Carbon nanotubes when introduced into the air supply of rats caused them to have massive lung lesions (SP!). I think this is because nanoparticles are small enough to pass right through the a cells outer membrane and cause all kinds of chaos. [obviously, do the SANE thing and do some googling on the effects of nanoparticles on lung tissue]

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  15. The answer is simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    stop PRODUCING the smog.

    *sigh*

  16. I know of another great product... by thrill12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    asbestos!
    It is the miracle product of our time:
    - It can't burn up, so you can use it to protect your house from fire. Think of it: no more fire in your home!
    - It can be used to protect innocent firemen while extuingishing other nasty fires.
    - You can process it in baby-clothing, to protect him/her from any harm !
    - You can put it on the stove, so your food doesn't burn up!

    Asbestos makes your life better !

    ...

    Now that we know it's poisonous, that gives me a few questions about this product also: how do we know it doesn't harm us directly?
    And er... does it have anything to do with red phosphourus ?

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  17. What happens to the paint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So then we instead have toxic paint after it's absorbed all those toxins, apparently everyone forgot about lead poisoning.