Slashdot Mirror


Graphene Membranes Superpermeable to Water

Dr Max writes "Not only is graphene the strongest, thinnest and best conducting material known to man, it is now shown to have superpermeability with respect to water as well. This allows a membrane made with graphene to pass water right through it (PDF), while another atom or molecule (even helium) gets blocked. 'The properties are so unusual that it is hard to imagine that they cannot find some use in the design of filtration, separation or barrier membranes and for selective removal of water,' said one of the researchers."

64 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...you don't need a pressure source like you do for reverse osmosis?

    1. Re:Does this mean... by imboboage0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After reading the second article, I'm not sure. I didn't read in detail, but they did some experiments with a pump. I'm not sure if it's required, but that is how they did it to research it.

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    2. Re:Does this mean... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...you don't need a pressure source like you do for reverse osmosis?

      Even if it does not, I would think it would be much more resilient toward chlorine and iron. Perhaps it won't need as much pretreatment done to the water as a conventional film membrane requires. Currently most decent RO systems have a 10 micron sediment filter, followed by 5 and 1 micron carbon filters. If you have high iron content in the feed water, then you need a softener or some other way to reduce it prior to the sediment filter too. Since the three RO pre-filters typically need to be replaced every 6-12 months, they are the most frequent replacement item. A typical RO membrane last 2-5 years. Perhaps this would be lengthened too.

    3. Re:Does this mean... by msheekhah · · Score: 2

      Can we use this for desalination? That would be epic.

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
    4. Re:Does this mean... by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but here they're showing that the membrane allows WATER through but will stop HELIUM. If I'm not mistaken, helium molecules are smallerthan water molecules. That's the freakish quality.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:Does this mean... by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      You do, of course. Otherwise you'll be able to create a perpetum mobile by using this membrane to filter out pure water and then using pure water to dilute brine (it produces energy) on the other side of the membrane.

    6. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're using energy to get that water higher than it's final location, just like a pump.

    7. Re:Does this mean... by slew · · Score: 3, Informative

      There has also been studies showing you can make a selective filter by making nanotubes with the right diameter to let water through but not larger molecules. In addition because the walls are so "smooth" there is much less pressure to flow the water through then expected.

      Although I doubt this orientation will allow for filtering out "helium" as the original posting.

      The mechanims that the original posting paper is speculating, it that the way they made the graphene oxide (not pure graphene) membrane, it is has embedded capilaries which when wet (filled with water) allow for nearly unimpeded transport of water, but when these capilaries dry out, their diameter constricts so that nothing gets through (even helium).

      So to contrast, the "tubes" are not rigid and the walls are not so "smooth" in this case, the "tubes" are sort of like chinese finger puzzles. When filled with water, allow water to pass easily, but when you try to pull the last bit of water out of them, the diameter constricts and nothing can get past.. Well maybe the chinese finger puzzle analogy was a bad one, but I couldn't think of anything else...

    8. Re:Does this mean... by Dr+Max · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Which doubles it's uses not only as a water filter but as a strong light weight container for almost anything. I'm thinking Airships that don't need re-filling and light weight gas tanks for fuel cells.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    9. Re:Does this mean... by AdrianKemp · · Score: 2

      It'd actually be awful -- it might filter the oil out but it'd take all of the gases/salt/etc out of the water too.

      The XPrize winning oil cleaner is probably way faster anyways since it doesn't rely on filtration (which is inherently slow)

    10. Re:Does this mean... by RussellSHarris · · Score: 2

      That might not be much of a problem. Helium is the least water-soluble monatomic gas. At STP (0 C, 1 atm), the solubility of helium is 1.7 ppm.

      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

      Helium pretty much just doesn't like staying anywhere, including in water.

    11. Re:Does this mean... by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oxygen being in the center of a water molecule pretty much makes it larger than helium in ALL directions.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:Does this mean... by jasno · · Score: 2

      Yeah but you could use tidal action... Sure, it limits the rate of clean water, but it's free.

      Hell, if you had a cistern below sea-level then gravity would do the work for you - you'd only expend energy to pump up the water. Humans are used to that, so it's really like having free groundwater.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    13. Re:Does this mean... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I wonder if that's one of those things that really would work, but not because it's perpetual motion, but instead because it's taking energy out of the system that's already there. For instance, look at wind power: just stick up a windmill in a windy place and you get free energy. Except that's not quite free: there's energy in the atmosphere, which is causing this wind, so your windmill is removing (a very small amount of) energy from the atmosphere and converting it to electricity. It works ok because of the scales involved, but if you saturated the globe with windmills, you'd probably cause a giant ecological or climate problem. Also, all this energy in the atmosphere is coming from the sun, so ultimately all you're doing is leaching off of the sun's waste heat in an indirect manner. Same goes for those tidal power generators; if we saturated the ocean floor with those things, it'd probably cause some massive problems (like stopping the ocean currents perhaps).

    14. Re:Does this mean... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      That's not a forbidden class of perpetual motion machine. It ultimately gets it's energy from the sun. And you are quite limited in the amount of energy that you can extract that way. I've never designed one, but there are a few analogous systems that are (or were, before solar power got cheaper) operating on remote islands. They were all test systems and none of them was cost effective, but that's more a design and materials problem than anything basic.

      IIRC there was one system that cost several thousand (not million!) dollars to build, and which could produce over 50 watts (don't remember how much). And it also had maintenance expenses. (Things immersed in salt water tend to.)

      I think the concept has been abandoned, but (some of) the pilot projects actually did work.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Does this mean... by Unordained · · Score: 2

      So, if it rained on the blimp, would the water fall all the way through? When it flies through a cloud -- is the cloud really flying through the blimp?

    16. Re:Does this mean... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      That's a narrow view of what is in water. Distilled / deionised water is incredibly bad for you. We can't just mix H2O and NaCl, it won't support life. Water needs a long list of nutrients and other molecules like dissolved oxygen before it can support life.

      I know its not relevant at the scale we're talking, but I'm just pointing it out, there's no point in adding the salt back by itself.

  2. Used to collect gifts from Shai-Hulud by geekopus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now we know what the water receptacles in Dune were made of.

  3. Super desalination? by Draconi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Press and squeeze a hydraulic press of water through a few layers of graphene = no more salty water?

    1. Re:Super desalination? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      Plus we can sell the harvested toxic waste to Hormel, or Hollywood, or Congress, or somebody.

    2. Re:Super desalination? by Chuckstar · · Score: 2

      You won't get water intoxication merely by drinking pure water. Regular drinking water contains such low proportions of minerals that, from a physiological perspective, drinking water is effectively pure water. The main problem with pure water is that it doesn't taste "right". If you've ever tried drinking distilled water... yuck.

    3. Re:Super desalination? by RussellSHarris · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please, stop spreading the FUD. Regular tap water can just as well cause water intoxication if you drink too much of it, and ultra-pure water is by no means unsafe to drink.

  4. Fresh water? by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you could pass thru i.e. ocean or contaminated water and get fresh, drinkable, pure water on the other side? If that could scale could be great.

    1. Re:Fresh water? by trout007 · · Score: 2

      Or you could mine salt by dragging a net of graphene behind a boat.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Fresh water? by iggymanz · · Score: 3

      nonsense, that (water intoxication) only happens if you drink too much water (whether 100% pure or not)

    3. Re:Fresh water? by rmstar · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't drink pure H2O - it disrupts ionic balance, you could probably die from drinking too much pure water.

      What you need is to make sure you obtain the electrolytes and minerals from some other source to avoid insufficiency. Other than that, pure water is safe to drink.

    4. Re:Fresh water? by RussellSHarris · · Score: 2

      You can't drink pure H2O

      Stop spreading the FUD.

      it disrupts ionic balance

      If you're eating properly you will get plenty of electrolytes from your food.

      you could probably die from drinking too much pure water

      And you could probably die from drinking too much pure Gatorade. Your point?

    5. Re:Fresh water? by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Informative

      All water is recycled. Every water molecule on the planet is at least 4.5 billion years old. All the dinosaur turds and spuge have been filtered out.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:Fresh water? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      And you could probably die from drinking too much pure Gatorade. Your point?

      That sounds like something that Brawndo can use in a future advertising campaign.

    7. Re:Fresh water? by tzot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The atoms might be at least 4.5 billion years old, but not *every* molecule of water is of that age.

      --
      I speak England very best
    8. Re:Fresh water? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Do both. You can now sell fresh water and salt. It's two markets in one to profit from.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Fresh water? by felipekk · · Score: 2

      Not literally every water mollecule. There's A LOT of chemical reactions that produce water as a product or byproduct. If I remember my chemistry classes correctly, these water molecules were possibly created.

    10. Re:Fresh water? by cunniff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spend a little time thinking about it, and you will realize that distilled water urban legend is silly. In your mouth, it is mixed with saliva and mucous and whatever else is stuck to your teeth, gums, and tongue. The instant it hits your stomach, it is mixed with stomach acids and whatever you ate recently. I.e. it is no longer pure distilled water. From there, the molecules wander through your body like any other water molecule. Distilling water does not give its component molecules magic properties.

    11. Re:Fresh water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's not spreading FUD. Pure H2O is possibly the most corrosive chemical in the universe and IS certainly the most corrosive chemical in the known universe. The second the stuff hits your mouth it'll leech all the minerals from your teeth. God only know what it would do to the soft tissues, but you can be certain the sodium will be gone and the cell membranes will collapse due to the saline imbalance. Nerves would certainly be rendered useless in the vicinity of the water contact as well. It would literally be safer to drink lye.

      I remember in college a problem we had in the physics department, they were using super clean water because they needed to minimize diffraction through it, and within a couple hours the vessel holding the water shattered because the water had sucked all the minerals out of the glass.

      Don't underestimate the power of the hydrogen bond.

    12. Re:Fresh water? by Tsingi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Water is formed from hydrogen and oxygen. It is not inert, it decomposes and reforms constantly. So, no, water molecules are not at least 4.5 billion years old.

      The hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water, or at least most of them, may well be much older than that. Particularly the hydrogen, which may be over 13 billion years old.

    13. Re:Fresh water? by Chuckstar · · Score: 2

      Regular drinking water has such a small amount of dissolved minerals in it that, from a physiological perspective, it's effectively pure. If 10 gallons of tap water would give you water intoxication, then 9.99 gallons of pure distilled water would have the same effect. That's probably well within the error range of measuring the effect of the intoxication in the first place.

    14. Re:Fresh water? by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Informative? How about flamebait. This is simply not true. Absolutely insanely pure water is just water. Your body doesn't react to a 0.0001% difference in dissolved solids. After a microsecond in your mouth the water is far from pure.

    15. Re:Fresh water? by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fresh water, salt, AND anchovies.

      And mermaids. You ever had sex with a mermaid? Blows your mind, man. I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to do a live one.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    16. Re:Fresh water? by RussellSHarris · · Score: 2

      He's not spreading FUD.

      Yes, it most definitely is FUD, and he was spreading it, though not nearly as thickly as you.

      Pure H2O is possibly the most corrosive chemical in the universe and IS certainly the most corrosive chemical in the known universe.

      I think the phrase you're looking for is "universal solvent". Oxygen is the most corrosive chemical in the universe, AFAIK. Solvent != corrosive.

      The second the stuff hits your mouth it'll leech all the minerals from your teeth.

      Utter bullshit. The leaching process would be so slow that you'd have to leave a tooth in a glass of DI water for a long time before any substantial amount of minerals were leached out of it.

      God only know what it would do to the soft tissues, but you can be certain the sodium will be gone and the cell membranes will collapse due to the saline imbalance.

      Water passes through a cell membrane much more easily than those ions, so no. Osmatic pressure would cause the cells to fill with water until they burst, but regular tap water will do the same thing. It would not instantly suck all the ions out of your cells, by any stretch of the imagination.

      It would literally be safer to drink lye.

      Why don't you go and do that, moron. Meanwhile, I'll be drinking RO water, just about as pure as it can be made.

      I remember in college a problem we had in the physics department, they were using super clean water because they needed to minimize diffraction through it, and within a couple hours the vessel holding the water shattered

      Correlation != causation. I'm sure plenty of people have kept super-pure water in glass vessels without experiencing that problem, so the onus is on you to prove what you claimed next:

      because the water had sucked all the minerals out of the glass.

    17. Re:Fresh water? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Ah, making stuff up on Slashdot. Pure water might pull a little bit of salt from surrounding tissue. It's no big deal. It quickly becomes not-so-pure water. Any drinkable water is considerably purer than your bodily fluids and so there will be osmotic pressure.

      I've drunk multi-distilled water and it's fine. I grew up drinking ordinary distilled water because our town water was so hard, and it's fine. Except for tasting slightly different, there's no noticeable effect.

    18. Re:Fresh water? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      People don't get any significant amount of electrolytes from drinking water. So it doesn't matter the situation. Any potable water, fresh, distilled or ultra distilled, it's all the same as far as your body is concerned.

    19. Re:Fresh water? by WebSorcerer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm a Ph.D. Chemist who has done some water purification studies. One difficulty is the build-up of particulate matter on/in the filter which slows down (eventually stops) flow through the filter.

      This problem can be addressed with the use of two filters in parallel, one of which is being back-flushed while the other operates. With the current types of filters, the system eventually plugs due to micro particulates. Perhaps this Graphine filter is immune to plugging, and merely flushing the surface will clean it.

      As you may have surmised from previous posts, it holds out the possibility of a limitless supply of potable water. What a boon to mankind!!

    20. Re:Fresh water? by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 2

      Protip: tuna is a fish. The stuff you buy in a can is not made from actual mermaids.

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
    21. Re:Fresh water? by elistan · · Score: 2

      I'll pile on the bandwagon, but with some numbers to back up my comments. *grin*

      Here's a study on the NIH website comparing tap to bottled water.

      Dietary Reference Intakes: (similar concept to RDA)
      Calcium: 1000 mg
      Magnesium: 420 mg
      Sodium: 500 to 2400 mg

      Sampled tap waters on average (and std dev):
      Calcium: 37mg/L (22.4) - 3.7% of DRI
      Magnesium: 11.47 mg/L (10.64) - 2.7% of DRI
      Sodium: 44 mg/L (49) - 8.8% to 1.8% of DRI

      So anybody who's relying on tap water for their mineral intake needs to be drinking 11 to 55 liters per day on average. (It's hard to find numbers regarding deaths from drinking too much water, but my impression is that the above amounts could easily lead to death. Drinking tap vs mineral-free water would not a factor.) Anybody who's not getting any minerals from drinking water isn't missing out on much at all.

  5. wonder substance by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    But can it be used as a dessert topping?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:wonder substance by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, just as a floor wax at this point.

      --
      Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
  6. Important detail by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not mentioned in the opener, but the article says it lets water "evaporate" through it.
    So it's not like you can just pour water on it, and let it drip through.

    I wonder if this just means steam can pass through it, or if it has to evaporate on the graphene for it to get through?
    If it was the former, then why are they wording it so complicated?

  7. graphene oxide, not graphene by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · · Score: 5, Informative

    The material they used was NOT graphene. It was graphene oxide.

    1. Re:graphene oxide, not graphene by sexconker · · Score: 2

      The material they used was NOT graphene. It was graphene oxide.

      Graphene monoxide or graphene dioxide?

      Graphene trioxide. Turbo. Power.
      For the closest chave a man can get.

  8. Journalist != scientist by tomhath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    graphene-based membranes are impermeable to all gases and liquids (vacuum-tight). However, water evaporates through them as quickly as if the membranes were not there at all.

    Thanks for clarifying that. Anyway, this is a very amazing material.

  9. Re:Geomembrane by TheLink · · Score: 2

    Would be quite expensive, but letting water go thru and nothing else would save millons in remediation.

    The membrane replacement cost is one of the main costs in making RO water. Energy costs are high too, but about the same order of magnitude.

    So to save money the graphene membrane has to be cheaper or it has to use less energy to filter water.

    I'm wondering if there are other things it lets through and not just water. Ammonia? Acetone?

    --
  10. Graphene Condom? by swb · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lets all the delicious moisture through, blocks the stuff you want blocked???

  11. Does it erase the Water Memory? by Belladora · · Score: 2, Funny

    What about the Water Memory? Does this membrane erase all this information or is a there a mechanism to determine which information to be deleted? Would be an invaluable Material for all that homeopathy stuff...

    1. Re:Does it erase the Water Memory? by Tassidus · · Score: 2

      Seems a bit weird to respond to a scientific discussion, with scientific proof and evidence, with an article that says "No scientific evidence supports this claim". It's equivalent to sitting in an evolution debate and proposing the idea of creationism. :-p

    2. Re:Does it erase the Water Memory? by EnsilZah · · Score: 2

      I believe the Whooosh failed to permeate the membrane.

  12. If it blocks Helium by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it blocks Helium this has very important applications.

    Helium molecules are very small. It is difficult to contain Helium gas in cylinders.

    There are even far more important applications for the global economy. It may finally be possible to make Helium balloons that don't leak the tiny molecules so quickly.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  13. Re:Wait, what about pressure? by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

    You are missing that the remaining liquid in the bottle evaporates, replacing the gas that left the bottle.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  14. Hydrogen by sycodon · · Score: 2

    One of the problems with a "hydrogen economy" is storage as hydrogen leaks out of pretty much everything.

    Wonder how well this blocks it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Hydrogen by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to TFA (well, the BBC article on the same subject, anyway) it blocks helium molecules with what appears to be 100% efficiency. Helium molecules are smaller than the molecules in a standing mass of hydrogen, since hydrogen atoms bond together to form H2.

  15. Helium by TuringCheck · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually the helium atom is the smallest possible molecule. The hidrogen atom is smaller but it forms H2 molecules which are much larger than a single atom, even if much lighter.

    Gaseous helium difuses through pretty much everything. These graphene membranes should have truly amazing properties.

    Armies of physicists will work years to explain such remarkable phenomenons. Neutrinos light than faster like just.

  16. water intoxication, by tap or ultrapure by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    You're right, but details are needed.

    Water intoxication can happen with either tap water or ultrapure water.

    If you add hydration you need to add electrolytes or your system goes out of balance. Your body can handle only so much imbalance. As it goes too far out of whack, that's effectively water intoxication.

    Drinking a glass of ultrapure probably won't hurt you, nor a glass of tap. But have a bunch of either in a short period and you will have a problem. Read the Wikipedia water intoxication article's "notable cases" section to get an idea of how much humans can handle.

  17. same atom, really? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    Hm... When hydrogens separate from oxygens, do they always take their original electron back? Or are we getting a random one out of the, say, two valence electrons the molecule was using previously? If we're possibly getting a different electron, isn't there a constant swap going on in the universe, for perhaps all covalent molecular configuration changes?

    That is, atoms reform constantly?

    So, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water could themselves be relatively fresh.

  18. Re:Might have to do with atomic forces? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    If only they had an article you cold read that tells you how it works.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Re:Might have to do with atomic forces? by tbird81 · · Score: 2

    This is what they said:
    "In conclusion, unimpeded evaporation of water through Heleaktight membranes sounds next to impossible. The closest analogy is probably the permeation of protons (atomic hydrogen) through thin films of transition metals, the phenomenon known as superpermeability. To explain our experiments, we propose the model that can be summarized as follows. GO laminates contain 2D capillaries that, under ambient conditions, are filled with an ordered monolayer of water. A capillarylike pressure provides a sufficient flow to keep the exposed GO surface wet so that the observed permeability is effectively limited by the surface evaporation. Permeation of other molecules is blocked by the intercalating water and, simultaneously, by their shrinkage in low humidity. Such highly selective membranes can be used for filtration and separation. The results have implications for the use of graphene oxide in various applications (e.g., batteries), explaining why the observed surface areas are close to the theoretical maximum. The next challenge is to utilize the found phenomenon, possibly along the lines extensively discussed for membranes made from carbon nanotubes."

    Don't ask me what it means though!