Slashdot Mirror


Taking Radioactive Contaminants From Water With Shells

RedEaredSlider writes "Crab shells may soon be used to take radioactive contaminants out of water. Joel Pawlak, an associate professor of forest biomaterials at North Carolina State University, has developed a material similar to foam rubber that absorbs water and attaches to molecules dissolved in it, leaving pure and potable water behind. The material is a combination of hemicellulose and chitosan. The first comes from wood and is extracted by the ton in the paper-making process. Chitosan is extracted from ordinary crustacean shells — primarily crab, shrimp and lobster — by treatment with hydrochloric acid and then sodium hydroxide."

50 comments

  1. Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... are planning a march on Washington to protest.

    Chitosan is extracted from ordinary crustacean shells — primarily crab, shrimp and lobster — by treatment with hydrochloric acid and then sodium hydroxide

    .

    Hmmm . . . that is one treatment that I will try avoid, if possible . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  2. Sharp shooting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radioactive contaminants are very small. It's going to take a lot of shells and excellent aim if you want to take out all contaminants.

    1. Re:Sharp shooting by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      The same application of common sense didn't stop people from demanding that the government buy up Kevin Costner's miracle machines to clean the entire gulf of oil, either.

  3. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by lxs · · Score: 2

    Almost sounds like an acid-base extraction. Is it an alkaloid?

  4. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it worse than radioactive crabs?

  5. Three Shells by narcc · · Score: 4, Funny

    We've known for years that three shells is all you need to remove common contaminants. Now, if only someone would post instructions...

    1. Re:Three Shells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've known for years that three shells is all you need to remove common contaminants. Now, if only someone would post instructions...

      He doesn't know how to use the three seashells!

    2. Re:Three Shells by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 0

      He doesn't know how to use the three seashells!

      Thanks a lot you shit-brained, fuck-faced, ball breaking, duck fucking pain in the ass... So much for the seashells. See you in a few minutes.

      --
      I8-D
    3. Re:Three Shells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've known for years that three shells is all you need to remove common contaminants. Now, if only someone would post instructions...

      good one... took me a while to pick that one up!!!

    4. Re:Three Shells by LeonPierre · · Score: 1

      Oh crap, here we go with the three shells again....

      --
      "If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet"
    5. Re:Three Shells by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      It's the line from Demolition Man. I hate 13 year old mods who don't get old movie references.

      --
      I8-D
    6. Re:Three Shells by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Demolition Man is an old movie? Jeez, I should probably be telling kids to get off my lawn then....

      "But there's just one thing I wanna know... How's that damn three seashell thing work?"

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  6. A timely discovery by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    If it works for radioactivity, could it work for almost anything? I mean could you literally put blood in one end and get clean water out the other? Not sure where I'm going with this but intersting...

    1. Re:A timely discovery by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      You could put (say) blood in at one end and get potable water out at the other end, along with a plugged and useless filter and a significant quantity of "blood concentrate". This is generally true for all filtering systems, and the more effective the filter, the faster it happens.

      SOME (not all) filtering systems can be reverse-flushed to regenerate them, but for that, you need a supply of potable water to do the flushing with (otherwise you'fe got a filter contaminated on both sides.

      Things get more complicated with chemically active filtering systems - ion exchange resins, semi-permeable membranes, etc. - but for simple systems, filtering is a thermodynamic problem, and the first and second Laws apply

      • First Law : you can't win.
      • Second Law : you can't even break even.

      Which is not to say that filtering is useless ; sometimes you have energy available, but need to convert it to uncontaminated solvent ; other times, you're not obligated to "close the cycle" by regenerating your original uncontaminated filter.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by andrea.sartori · · Score: 2

    A polysaccharide.

    --
    Mostly harmless.
  8. same trick tried on genuine american natives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "just accept this mere bag of shells, as a token of our gratitude" they (chosen ones 'discovery' team) bespoke onto them, who knew no words. what happened next, & ever since, brings us back again to our own plight. one less cup of coffee? try even harder to pretend it's ok? we do whatever we have to do?

  9. search?q=recursion by atari2600a · · Score: 1

    So we're going to take parts of wildlife apart to clean the environment we destroyed to save the wildlife? Interesting... I'm a little curious how they'll COLLECT the shells. Are we going to buy the byproducts of a factory that produces frozen pre-made seafood?

    1. Re:search?q=recursion by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Probably. Just look at how many crabs are eaten. Now look at how many of those sold have a shell still attached. It's turning waste from two different sources into a usable solution to a major problem - and one that's just become even more significant.

  10. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our radioactive crab overlords!

  11. Did anyone else double take by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    on how exactly they were going to remove radioactivity with a shell, and if so, which one ?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Did anyone else double take by spirito · · Score: 2

      rm -rf radioactivity perhaps? Seriously, if you don't know the basics, do not post on slashdot!

    2. Re:Did anyone else double take by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      It won't work without a forward slash. Forward slashes counteract radiactivity:

      rm -rf / radioactivity

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  12. thoughtful thursday, time conceals all wounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's likely how fatal friday got its' impetus. even in the pitchest of darkness, there is light.

    the truth, having been on extended exile, has made itself available again, including some of it's favorite tenants; math, science, history & life, for those who care to partake. on to babylon.

  13. BASH Shell? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    I guess they'll be using the shell to BASH the radioactivity out.

    *ba da boom tish*

    Thank you, I'm here all week!

  14. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by lxs · · Score: 2

    So it is, but there is still that dangling amine group on the monomer which would be susceptible to acid base extraction if you'd find a suitable non polar solvent.

  15. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a polysaccharide, in which some of the saccharides are D-glucosamine, which is basic.

  16. And how much will is cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chitosan, also know as Glucosamine, is currently being sold as a dietary supplement.

    Its not particularly cheap either, and these are just a bunch of pills.

    How much of this shit would you need to filter tons of radioactive water?

    1. Re:And how much will is cost? by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think that because glucosamine as a dietary supplement is pretty expensive, it follows that that glucosamine as an industrial reagent will be as well. The prices of medicines and supplements rarely are cost of production and distribution plus reasonable markup.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  17. World of Warcraft by El+Lobo · · Score: 1

    The summary sounds like a WoW quest. It should have ended with a "Lobuno, please could you get me 12 crab shells from the Abyss?". Sorry... too much WoW this last mon

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
  18. branson; world wide airlifts of harmed civilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to safe inland shelter, in still livable areas, in other parts of the world, like utah.

    this guy is whack? can he do it? can we help him? is there room?

    if anybody could ever get their cherries back? let's

  19. Save the Earth by SEWilco · · Score: 2

    Eat lobster and save the world!

  20. We're already doing this! by T-Bucket · · Score: 1

    I thought "This is the same way we're removing terrorists from Iraq!". But wait, different kind of shell...

  21. But which shell?!? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    I knew shell would save the world, but which one? csh, ksh, bash, zsh, ...

    --
    I8-D
  22. Interesting by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

    Sounds like they're combining the properties of both a cationic and anionic polymer with the idea of maximizing the surface area on which the adhesion occurs (similar to activated carbon).

    Basically, in layman's terms... most things that dissolve in water form ions (either positively or negatively charged), which can be removed by their electrostatic adhesion to oppositely-charged ions. According to TFA, this polymer foam has both positively and negatively charged ions at its surface for the dissolved ions to adhere to (perhaps someone with more knowledge of organic chemistry could tell me if this is fairly unique? I've never heard of a polymer which was both cationic and anionic). Since the ions actually cling to its surface, the surface area should be maximized (the principle behind an activated carbon filter), which in this case they're doing by making it into a foam.

  23. I volunteer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I volunteer my services to manufacture said crab shells. I'll require a hearty supply of live crabs, a really big boiling pot, and some Old Bay. I'll get the shells to you in a few months.

  24. Re:It better be big by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

    It isn't even clear, from the article, how much is needed.

    "... each gram of polymer will remove about 1.3 to 1.7 grams of contaminants... wants to get the material to a 100-to-1 ratio, in which a single gram of it can filter 100 grams of water."

    Pick a unit guys, either use # grams of water/ # grams of polymer, or use # g contaminants/# g water. As it is, it isn't clear what they're aiming for relative to where they are.

  25. Lobsteron the Terrible! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    What they didn't tell you is that it will birth Lobersteron the Terrible! Sucking all that radiation into its carapace he will grow to the size of a large skyscraper and terrorize the countryside. Fortunately he will probably cross paths with Crabucon the Munificent and will duke it out, the loser slinking back into the ocean. Of course the urban devastation will be horrible, but whatcha gonna do... Hopefully it will be DJ'ed by the Beastie Boys.

  26. Add "radioactive" to get news coverage by Caption+Wierd · · Score: 1

    There is no difference in removing radioactive materials from seawater than removing non-radioactive materials. Each atom of I-131 is exactly Iodine until that moment when it decides to decay and transform into Xenon-131, a stable isotope. This method may be useful only if it can remove contaminants at very low mass concentrations. The total amount of I-131 released at Fukushima is only around 100 grams, assuming the values in the news are correct. The reported concentration at one of the outfalls, at several thousand times the drinking water limits, works out to about 0.03 PPB.

  27. ceramic filters anyone? by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    I recently shifted from ordinary disposable filters (that cost an arm and a leg per year for the average family here in Europe) to a swiss-made ceramic-based one that can be cleaned after a while, and is expected to last years (I indeed used it for one year now without wear).
    I understand this method is more for bacterias etc. rather than ions, so maybe the crab-related thingie could be set just after ;-)
    For this now I also have a carbon flter that removes some ions (chlore among others) but certainly not radioactive iodine :-D
    All in all I feel I now have a more durable system, without throwing aways kilograms of disposable filters every year...
    H.

    --
    Herve S.
    1. Re:ceramic filters anyone? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      The principle here is not actual filtration (such as is done by your ceramic filters). It is actually the electrostatic attraction between charged ions. Rather than a lattice structure in which large impurities get "stuck", this is a surface to which impurities adhere. It's like fly-paper, or those cat-hair removers.

      Making it into a foam is not designed to trap the impurities, but rather to give the impurities a lot of surface area to stick to. The impurities don't get stuck because they can't find any open path through the material; they get stuck because once they touch the surface, they're stuck.

  28. Won't work on heavy water by tirerim · · Score: 1

    Since this relies on chemical properties of dissolved radioactive elements, it shouldn't have any effect on deuterium and tritium bound up in water molecules. Deuterium isn't actually radioactive, but tritium is, so there could still be some radioactivity. I don't know how much tritiated water is likely to be contained in conatminated water, though (it might vary depending on the source), so it might not actually be that much of a problem.

  29. Explanation... or three... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    There's even a diagram on how to use them here.

    But, considering what is seen here, I do believe that something along the lines of wash-dry-perfume bidet is actually the correct answer.
    Or should be.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  30. But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    I want to take radioactive contaminants from water without shells in it.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  31. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by the_hellspawn · · Score: 1

    In soviet waters the crabs radiate you.

    --
    "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
  32. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't affect slashdotters - they are not likely to catch crabs

  33. Marketting BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire article is marketing BS. It's akin to all the crap that came out immediately after BP massive oil leak.

    Too bad that radioactive, water soluble substances, will simply "dilute to undetectability" in the ocean. Even with our ability to almost count single atoms of radioactive materials, it will not be possible to find the radioactive material from Japan.

    For example, France exploded a nuclear bombs in the Pacific until end of 1995. Where did that massive amount of radiation go??

  34. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

    if they keep using water cannons to spray anti nuke demonstrators, they will wear them out before they get a chance to cool down a melted core.

  35. Re:It better be big by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

    enough to make your hair fall out?

  36. Re:Meanwhile a crowd of crab, shrimp and lobster . by Meski · · Score: 1

    Let me put it this way: You won't need a glow-in-the-dark condom afterwards. And you won't need one at all, if you're just seeking to prevent contraception.