Slashdot Mirror


Making Saltwater Drinkable With Graphene

An anonymous reader writes "Graphene once again proves that it is quite possibly the most miraculous material known to man, this time by making saltwater drinkable. The process was developed by a group of MIT researchers who realized that graphene allowed for the creation of an incredibly precise sieve. Basically, the regular atomic structure of graphene means that you can create holes of any size, for example the size of a single molecule of water. Using this process scientist can desalinate saltwater 1,000 times faster than the Reverse Osmosis technique."

83 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. A foul subject. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So how durable is this membrane when it comes to dealing with impurities?

    1. Re:A foul subject. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Graphene membranes are highly durable. The main problem would be clearing the inlet side of the filter from the buildup of blocked particles.

      Prevous Slashdot article here: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/01/27/1354240/graphene-membranes-superpermeable-to-water

      http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/news/display/?id=7895

      http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3488.pdf

    2. Re:A foul subject. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surely it won't last forever, but the membrane lifetime could be extended by using normal filters to retain impurities, and let the graphene deal with pure saline water. Maybe the graphene filter can be cleaned a couple of times and be reutilized.

    3. Re:A foul subject. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of those would be larger molecules than H20, don't you think? This is a pretty cool discovery/invention.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:A foul subject. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree,getting salt out is fine, but, fishy smell, fish pee, industrial pollution (mercury 'n'such ).

      Err, no one does that... Seriously. Fishy smell? Fish pee? wtf??

      Mercury is not toxic much anyway, unless it is in organic forms.

      But then on the plus side, if Uranium cost were > $350/lb, it would be economical to mine Uranium from sea water. It doesn't mean this concentration is toxic for you.

      Where I live, most of the water is from a lake, with fish pee and moose pee all mixed in together. haha

    5. Re:A foul subject. by foniksonik · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    6. Re:A foul subject. by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, TFA brings absolutely no detail. It won't even let you know it it is about something produced in a lab, some theoretical contruction, or even if nobody has no idea how to create such a filter.

      Now, graphene is pretty stable. It probably cloges with time, as other athoms get in the place of carbon, but that is an incredibly slow process. A membrane composed of a single graphene sheet should last more than any other component of your plant.

      Ok, all the above is great, and etc. But when you get in the real world, membranes get old because of impurities that accumulate on its porous. A single graphene sheet has nowhere for those impurities to accumulate, if you reverse whash it, all impurities are gone (except for the mechanism at the above paragraph). But no practical membrane is composed of a single graphene sheet, thus, durability will be probably all over the scale depending on the quality of the actual membrane, from trash that can't be used on a lab to as good as ceramic filters.

    7. Re:A foul subject. by similar_name · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A mulit-filter process is likely to be used and while I didn't RTFA the summary says different hole sizes can be made so you might be able to fine tune it for each thing you want to filter. Imagine running sea water through a process that isolates different molecules. Not only do you get salt out of water so that you get salt and water you might be able to separate other useful things out along the way.

    8. Re:A foul subject. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well assume they can reverse-flush it on a regular basis and that it won't collapse that way, either.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:A foul subject. by Nutria · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pull your head out of your arse and think: water treatment plants of all sorts have been doing that for 120 years using scrapers, settling tanks, sand filters and flocking agents.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    10. Re:A foul subject. by manicb · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the other article people are posting, this is based on Molecular Dynamics simulations. MD is a theoretical technique that uses time-dependent Newtonian mechanics. It relies heavily on having good-quality data for the interactions between the atoms, but allows relatively large systems to be modelled. The wikipedia article contains a fair bit of information (probably too much).

      TLDR: This is just based on computational modelling. The model is fairly crude, but is a standard technique for this scale of system and the results should be taken seriously.

    11. Re:A foul subject. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Surely it won't last forever...

      Yes, it will last forever, and don't call me Shirley.

    12. Re:A foul subject. by Woogiemonger · · Score: 4, Informative

      But *if* they break... what then?

      Let's put this to rest. Graphene is one of the strongest materials ever: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/jul/17/graphene-has-record-breaking-strength

    13. Re:A foul subject. by ThePeices · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But *if* they break... what then?

      Let's put this to rest. Graphene is one of the strongest materials ever:
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/jul/17/graphene-has-record-breaking-strength

      Being the strongest material does not mean it is unbreakable.

    14. Re:A foul subject. by plover · · Score: 4, Informative

      Salt dissolved in water isn't just a bunch of wet table-salt-shaped crystals. It's a bunch of individual NaCl molecules floating around. And this filter has holes small enough to pass H2O molecules, but not NaCl molecules. Most other molecules, such as those of uric acid, are much larger than NaCl, and therefore this filter will trap them, too.

      It isn't breaking anything down. It's not chemically altering the substances in solution. It's simply a filter that has holes so tiny that only molecules that are three atoms or smaller will pass through them.

      --
      John
    15. Re:A foul subject. by gomiam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, you don't really get many NaCl molecules in water (until you reach saturation, but then they drop to the bottom) but Na+ and Cl- ions surrounded by water molecules. As such, individual water molecules can go through the right-size holes while water surrounded ions can't (since they would have to "let go" of the water molecules surrounding them).

    16. Re:A foul subject. by Yosho-sama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keep in mind that this process is regarding desalinization, not water purification. I'm sure if graphene solves the problems of desalinization, it will work wonders with purification, but there are adequate water purification systems located in most places, but water desalinization is a massively expensive procedure in comparison.

      A robust and cost effective desalinization system is literally one of the biggest necessities we're going to need in the next century, as average rainfall levels continue to fall all over the U.S.

      I know it may be impractical but I see giant desalinization inlets from the ocean leading to a network of irrigation and river systems for the West coast.

      --
      My kingdom for a donkey!
    17. Re:A foul subject. by amliebsch · · Score: 2

      Salt? That goes on the fries, of course.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    18. Re:A foul subject. by tragedy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Graphite is a mixture of all kinds of carbon molecules including buckyballs, carbon nanotubes and graphene. You can eat fistfuls of graphite without serious problems. It's not great for your lungs if inhaled, of course, but getting some in your drinking water isn't going to hurt you.

    19. Re:A foul subject. by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also keep in mind that DRINKING water (fish pee smell) is not the big issue. People will pay $4 for 350 mls of brand-name water purified from tap water due to marketing and consumers being illogical. Agriculture is the bigger issue. Increasing water costs a few cents per gallon would have major consequences for agriculture, subsidies from the government would have to be substantially increased. Fortunately, it need not be purified as much as drinking water does. If running it through a graphene filter desalinates water to the point of being useful for agriculture but not pure enough to drink, the problem is still solved.

      It's been pointed out that the most efficient way to do things would be to recycle city waste water for drinking water, since it's more free of some contaminants like mercury, and, more to the point, is already at the point where we'd need it. Piping drinking water from the ocean just to piss it into a river is hugely wasteful.

      The biggest impediment to that is the ick factor you just brought up: if the idea of drinking water that had fish urine removed from it, people are going to throw a hissy fit before they'll drink water recycled from their own pee.

    20. Re:A foul subject. by ciderbrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      The metric system lacks fistfuls as a measure. I think we can all agree, it is incomplete and broken.

    21. Re:A foul subject. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      The beauty of this is that you have it backwards. Fresh, clear, cool water leaves the system, leaving more salinated water behind. The increased salt concentration makes it more difficult to pull out fresh water. So you flush your over-salinated water back out to the salt water source. Effectively, you're pulling rain water from the bay. Of course, as a side effect of all this, you don't get a cakey salt build-up on the membrane: flushing it and bringing in new salt water actually keeps the system clean. It self-maintains.

    22. Re:A foul subject. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      It's carbon in sheets. The effects are known: it's completely harmless. In the absolute worst case, it reacts with oxygen to produce CO2, which you exhale... thus making it an anti-oxidant, a cancer-fighting agent, since it would react with free oxygen radicals (though it would produce carbon monoxide in small amounts in that case, which is also harmless).

  2. "scientist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Using this process scientist can desalinate saltwater 1,000 times faster than the Reverse Osmosis technique.

    Well isn't that swell for 'scientist', but does scientist plan to share?

    1. Re:"scientist" by axlr8or · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, they are meeting with Apple execs as we speak to save the world. It will be called, the iDsalter. The commerical will be giving a can of Redbull to an astronaut, and kicking him out the airlock of the ISS with a parachute and a pair of augmented reality googles, bluetooth paired to an iPad so he can watch ads all the way down while recording his POV.

    2. Re:"scientist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wow. You have no sense of humor.

      Let's break down why you are unfunny.
      1. Starting with Apple execs, it's obvious you are trying to be funny, so hopefully the last half of the sentence will be funny. Oh but the punchline is "to save the world." Hmm, not funny at all.
      2. You try to recover from that bomb with the old Apple-prepending-i-for-all-their-products gag. But you wedge a D clumsily in there. Now, it's confirmed you've got nowhere to go but down, Dane Cook style with a completely unnecessary story that serves to only distract stupid people from your previous disasters.
      3. As expected, you begin a painfully lame story about a surreal commercial, because surrealist humor will win you all the hipsters at least right?
      4. To salvage this miserable post, you bet that other Slashdot neckbeards will moderate your post up for that witty reference to Google glasses.

      At this point, you're really hoping people have forgotten that this was supposed to be some kind of joke about Apple and desalination to compensate for your complete lack of knowledge in the subfield of materials science that is detailed in the story.

  3. Holes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what about the holes getting blocked by minerals and impurities? seems high maintenance job.

    1. Re:Holes? by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Backflush?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Holes? by sam_handelman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A couple of people have raised this issue, and it relies on a fundamental mis-understanding of how the universe works on a molecular scale.

        Suppose that I have my colander and I wash some vegetables in it. Gunk can get stuck in the holes and it has to be washed off, which requires a fair amount of work because I have to break the interaction between the gunk and the surface. That's your macroscopic intuition about how filters and such work.

        But your macroscopic intuition will lead you astray in this case. The individual holes in graphene do not work that way; yes, occasionally, molecules of one kind or another will spend some time stuck to the graphene (a useful phenomenon in other circumstances - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-performance_liquid_chromatography) but, on the scale of atoms, they are effectively in a high-powered washing machine ALL THE TIME.

        Can't find quite the movie I want... this'll do:
      http://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/brownian-motion-observed-in-milk/

        So you see those oil bubbles wiggling around? Given that amount of constant wiggle, are you worried about having them "stuck" anywhere? That's thermal vibration from being at room temperature. Those milk bubbles are over 1,000 water molecules across, so each of those "wiggles" is 10 or 100 times the size of an individual graphene pore; are you worried about anything another 1000x smaller being "stuck" anywhere? It would be like worrying about gunk stuck in your colander while your colander was sitting in a fire-hose 24/7.

        Anyway- to cut to the chase:
      obviously you could have you take the graphene and you run the sea water *past* it at high pressure. Occasionally some gunk gets in there but it washes away sooner or later; and nothing spends any appreciable amount of time stuck in an individual graphene hole.

      --
      The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    3. Re:Holes? by ffflala · · Score: 5, Funny

      Occasionally some gunk gets in there but it washes away sooner or later; and nothing spends any appreciable amount of time stuck in an individual graphene hole.

      She was a real hot-shooter, that bubble. I should have known she'd be trouble from the get go; she was naturally "charged" as they say when they're trying to be polite.

      With her bouncing around all over the place even at room temperature, I guess I should have seen it coming. But, as will happen to palookas and wishful thinkers, my hopes and processes got the best of me. I was convinced that any trouble would wash away as soon as it cropped She didn't even say goodbye, just left a note saying she'd thought she had found a solution with me, but couldn't stand the suspension and was afraid of becoming just another precipitate.

      That was three years ago. I took the tube directly to this here graphene hole; it was the closest one I could find. I've been stuck here ever since.

    4. Re:Holes? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      not disagreeing with your assessment, but:

      Gunk can get stuck in the holes and it has to be washed off, which requires a fair amount of work because I have to break the interaction between the gunk and the surface. That's your macroscopic intuition about how filters and such work.

      I think people may be basing their assumptions on typical RO membranes, which are microscopic in function and do get gunked up and need to be replaced. In fact, that's next on my project list for the kitchen, after I get done wasting time on /. ;)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Holes? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You sell it as fancy eco-friendly sea salt for $15/lb.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Holes? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh please. For one thing, we already have desalination plants in some places dumping brine back into the sea; obviously it's not a big problem. There's a lot of water in the oceans. Secondly, the highly concentrated brine from these graphene filters could potentially be valuable for harvesting sea salt. We already have giant sea salt plants, where basically ocean water is left to dry out so we can take the salt out; between humans taking sea salt and leaving the water, and taking water and leaving the salt, I don't think there's any net effect on the oceans. And these graphene filters could make sea salt harvesting potentially more efficient.

    7. Re:Holes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh please. For one thing, we already have desalination plants in some places dumping brine back into the sea; obviously it's not a big problem. There's a lot of water in the oceans.

      (trying really hard to not be snipe-y or sarcastic here)
      Actually, dealing with the by-products of plants operations, which are not limited to the 'brine', are a big problem. Older plants create deadzones. Newer plants do better at defusing the saline concentrations, but that's still only one consideration. Check out the Wikipedia page on Desalination to actually learn something. :)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

      Also, if you want to convert desalination outflow to usable table salt you have to clean it first. Economically undesirable in most cases. (But not all)

      Desalination, as a solution to fresh water needs, is expenSive, complicated and (generally) damaging. It is a "big problem". However, societies generally overlook big problems when they find a way to get things that they want (more). See: fracking.

    8. Re:Holes? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the highly concentrated brine from these graphene filters could potentially be valuable for harvesting sea salt.

      The concentrated brine could also be useful for generating electricity. Demand for desalinated water is highest in warm, arid regions with plenty of sunshine. So here is what you do:

      1. Pump seawater through the graphene filter to separate it into fresh water and brine.
      2. Move the brine into evaporation ponds, to concentrate it even further.
      3. Generate electricity using the electric potential between the brine and regular seawater
      4. Use some of the electricity to power step #1, sell the rest.
      5. Profit!

      Basically, this is a cheap way to collect solar energy (the sunshine falling on the evaporation ponds) while generating fresh water in the process.

    9. Re:Holes? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      "Normal" sea salt is a commodity. "Fancy" sea salt from specific places (pink salt, fleur de sel, etc.) is expensive. With the right marketing (and with the desalinization plant located in the right place), they could charge "fancy salt" prices.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:Holes? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Also, if you want to convert desalination outflow to usable table salt you have to clean it first. Economically undesirable in most cases. (But not all)

      Why would that be? There's already lots of places where ocean water is evaporated into sea salt, to be used for human consumption. Why not just use desalination outflow for that and kill two birds with one stone?

      Desalination, as a solution to fresh water needs, is expenSive, complicated and (generally) damaging. It is a "big problem". However, societies generally overlook big problems when they find a way to get things that they want (more). See: fracking.

      Ok, but what's the alternative? If you have too many people in a place where there isn't enough freshwater to support them, what else are you going to do? No, executing excess population is not a viable solution.

      Fracking is slightly different; people don't absolutely require petroleum products for life; there's other energy sources available, we're just too cheap and lazy to develop those. But people can't survive without freshwater.

    11. Re:Holes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The graphene sheet is only a single atom thick; erosion is not possible. Tearing (catastrophic failure) is a problem, however.

    12. Re:Holes? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In that case it is easy. The solution to this pollution is dilution.
      I find it so funny how Slashdot seems to be a bastion of anti-tech these days. Many of the issues "Flamable drinking water" actually seem to predate actual fracking. Any contamination of drinking water must be taking place on the down pipe and not the actual fracking zone since natural gas is found below the water table and not above. So the big problem seems to be simple pipe failure which is something that can be fixed. Of course the EPA should regulate the ingredients of the fracking fluid but over all the fear factor on Slashdot is very disappointing. Frankly it almost seems as if coal companies are paying people off for this.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:Holes? by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, as with most situations where humans dump heaps of something somewhere without worrying about the consequences too much, the buildup of salt in the ocean potentially can have significant harmful effects on sea life.

      This is a major issue near where I live at the moment - we have no water (driest state in the driest continent on Earth) so we are keen on desalination, but the planned desal plant may kill a unique local form of giant cuttlefish because we are going to pump heaps of salt into a gulf that doesn't flush out quickly:

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-04-16/cuttlefish-at-risk-from-desalination-plant/2243198

      I guess it'd like fish deciding that pumping a few percent of extra CO into the local atmosphere won't be a problem for us because the atmosphere is so big. At a certain point you don't want to be too near the outlet.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
  4. Why stop at salt? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How does this filter work on bacteria and viruses? The standard of living in the 3rd world would go up dramatically with free access to clean water.

    1. Re:Why stop at salt? by RPGillespie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well considering that the holes are the size of water molecules, I think it would be safe to say that bacteria and viruses would not fit. It would be like trying to force a tennis ball through a hole in a pasta strainer.

    2. Re:Why stop at salt? by NEDHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not 'less'. 'fewer'.

    3. Re:Why stop at salt? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The standard of living in the 3rd world would go up dramatically with free access to clean water.

      There's a trend towards decreasing access to freshwater in many developed parts of the world as well. Much of the southern United States will be uninhabitable within our lifetimes if they do not secure another source of fresh water. I do not think just the '3rd world' has this problem. We will all be '3rd world' if the trend continues. And then no world... because almost all life on land depends on it.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Why stop at salt? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Much of the southern United States will be uninhabitable within our lifetimes if they do not secure another source of fresh water

      yet if you mention this to people who live there they go absolutely bonkers denial on you. I guess I'm not speaking about the small minority who will profit from doing the math.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Why stop at salt? by LionKimbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Water Molecule: 275 pico-meters

      Ecoli Bacteria: 0.6 micro-meters (109,000x larger)

      Rhinovirus: 30 nm (110x larger)

    6. Re:Why stop at salt? by jbeach · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed. People can show even more denial with this than with the Peak Oil problem we're going to be facing. Not the Pentagon; they're busy making plans and releasing public papers that point out the upcoming world shortages in water AND oil. But they're a bunch of pointy-headed eco-socialists apparently.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    7. Re:Why stop at salt? by tmosley · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Eat the membrane. Pseudomonas is notorious for eating things that it shouldn't be able to eat. In my own lab, I have seen it eat 1/10th of the way through a contact lens in 24 hours. The holes are only visible by electron microscopy (they leave something like a honeycomb behind), but they are terrifyingly widespread across the entire surface.

    8. Re:Why stop at salt? by I_am_Jack · · Score: 2

      With pores barely wide enough to allow water molecules through, we're already talking about submicron level filtration.

      Again, best practices dictate your filtration membrane is not your only pathogenic barrier. If you had a compromised immune system, and any pathogen in the water could make you exceptionally sick, if not outright kill you, wouldn't you want more than just one step in place? I worked in water filtration for several years. The quality of the feed water would determine which system was best, but even in the best of systems, nothing is 100% (not even ultra-pure, water for injection systems; even then, there's an acceptable level of pyrogens (dead bacteria or viruses) that can remain in the water). But no one I knew who knew what they were doing would rely on a membrane under pressure to act as the only pathogenic barrier.

    9. Re:Why stop at salt? by I_am_Jack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks. The point I was trying to make was that in the industry, an RO membrane is never looked at as a filtration device for removing bacteria or viruses. As a matter of fact, since TFE membranes can be damaged by chlorine and chloramines, you have to use carbon as a pre-filter for the feed water to prevent the RO membrane from failing, When you service the point of use residential systems, they're slimy (and sometimes smelly) messes from all the heterotrophic bacteria that builds up.

    10. Re:Why stop at salt? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      .Scarcity of oil creates price signals that are fed back into (capitalist) society in a feedback loop.

      The trick seems to be timing. At this point, real estate in Dallas being bought with a 30-year mortgage ought to have water cost factored into the price. AFAICT, it doesn't yet. Maybe 10 years out it will, but that's not usually how property is financed.

      I dunno, maybe they'll build an 80' pipeline from the Great Lakes. Probably cheaper than the collective depreciation on all the property in Texas, but if that's the case, how much of the wealth is illusory?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Why stop at salt? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Much of the southern United States will be uninhabitable within our lifetimes if they do not secure another source of fresh water.

      Nonsense. Less than 1/4th of all fresh water goes to domestic use. First, other southern states will start adopting some of California's water conservation methods, like low-flow fixtures (toilets, shower-heads, large-drip sprinklers, leech lines), and then it'll escalate to cutting off of ornamental fountains, and disappearing lawns. In the longer-term, grey water systems will be put in-place, and municipalities will be more inclined to supplement groundwater with recycled (sewer) water.

      We will all be '3rd world' if the trend continues. And then no world... because almost all life on land depends on it.

      That's just mind-numbing... This is just a method to make desalination CHEAPER. And desalination is just one method of water filtration and reprocessing. My $10/mo water bill going up, even drastically, will have practically no effect on me, while it will make gathering other water sources, and more aggressive processing methods become economical for municipalities... It's good old supply and demand.

      Some people pay more per-gallon for water than they do for gasoline, thanks to "bottled water", so we can obviously afford a higher price here in the first-world.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:Why stop at salt? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      For areas east of the Mississippi River, my understanding is that they will not become uninhabitable, merely that the current rate of population growth for those areas is unsustainable. For areas west of the Mississippi River it is more complicated. All of them are experiencing population growth that will soon outstrip the available water supply (frequently they already have and are draining the groundwater reserves faster than they can be replenished). Some of areas rely on groundwater almost entirely, those areas will become uninhabitable when the groundwater supply is depleted (although after a few years a small population could probably be supported again). Other areas will be able to continue to support a much smaller population.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:Why stop at salt? by kesuki · · Score: 2

      i RTFA and this is a membrane replacement only not a complete filtering system. they say the membrane will work much faster than existing membranes becuse most molecules will bounce away. and to be precise the hole size is "This complete salt exclusion was achieved at 23.1 Å2 for hydrogenated pores and 16.3 Å2 for hydroxylated pores."
      they don't know how long the membranes last (become damaged by bacteria or molecular wear) none of which is known since this was a computer model not real hardware.

    14. Re:Why stop at salt? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 4, Funny

      Water Molecule: 275 pico-meters

      Ecoli Bacteria: 0.6 micro-meters (109,000x larger)

      Rhinovirus: 30 nm (110x larger)

      Rhinoceros: 4m (14,545,454,500x larger)

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  5. It is a RO membrane, just a really good one by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Basically, the regular atomic structure of graphene means that you can create holes of any size, for example the size of a single molecule of water. Using this process scientist can desalinate saltwater 1,000 times faster than the Reverse Osmosis technique.

    It is a RO membrane, just a really good one? They've described exactly how a RO membrane works. Of course this may have more "holes per sq inch" or whatever, maybe even 1000 times as many.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:It is a RO membrane, just a really good one by trout007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is only a guess by RO filters have two things that take power. They require a high pressure differential across the membrane which makes for expensive pumps, piping and electric bills. Also they have a lot of bypass water which wastes energy by making you bring it up to pressure and then just dump it out.

      If this membrane requires less pressure and less bypass it will significantly reduce both the capital costs and operating costs of such a system.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:It is a RO membrane, just a really good one by phme · · Score: 2

      From phys.org:

      In contrast to RO, which uses high pressure to slowly push water molecules (but not salt ions) through a porous membrane, nanoporous materials work under lower pressures and provide well-defined channels that can filter salt water at a faster rate than RO membranes.
      However, this is the first time that scientists have explored the potential role of nanoporous graphene as a filter for water desalination. Single-layer graphene, which is just one carbon atom thick, is the ultimate thin membrane, making it advantageous for water desalination since water flux across a membrane scales inversely with the membrane’s thickness.
      [...]
      The scientists explain that there are two main challenges facing the use of nanoporous graphene for desalination purposes. One is achieving a narrow pore size distribution, although rapid experimental progress in synthesizing highly ordered porous graphene suggests that this may soon be feasible. The other challenge is mechanical stability under applied pressure, which could be achieved using a thin-film support layer such as that used in RO materials.

    3. Re:It is a RO membrane, just a really good one by qvatch · · Score: 5, Informative

      The abstract: "We show that nanometer-scale pores in single-layer freestanding graphene can effectively filter NaCl salt from water. Using classical molecular dynamics, we report the desalination performance of such membranes as a function of pore size, chemical functionalization, and applied pressure. Our results indicate that the membrane’s ability to prevent the salt passage depends critically on pore diameter with adequately sized pores allowing for water flow while blocking ions. Further, an investigation into the role of chemical functional groups bonded to the edges of graphene pores suggests that commonly occurring hydroxyl groups can roughly double the water flux thanks to their hydrophilic character. The increase in water flux comes at the expense of less consistent salt rejection performance, which we attribute to the ability of hydroxyl functional groups to substitute for water molecules in the hydration shell of the ions. Overall, our results indicate that the water permeability of this material is several orders of magnitude higher than conventional reverse osmosis membranes, and that nanoporous graphene may have a valuable role to play for water purification." Emphasis added for why, and the introduced problem

    4. Re:It is a RO membrane, just a really good one by lvxferre · · Score: 2

      Just my two cents of opinion on answering your "why": I think they'll break some C-C bonds and put hydroxyl radicals (OH) in their places. In order for the water to pass, it just needs to lend one hydrogen to the hydroxyl (even if at the other side of the membrane) and takes its place, this is far quicker than hitting the right position of the hole to pass.

      Of course, where there was a C-C bond, it'll be a hole, so some salt can pass too (especially because sodium ions are pretty small), but not enough to make the process useless.

      (Note, this is just a guessing. Take my words with a grain of salt... from RO or not.)

      --
      Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
  6. Forget about how long it takes, what's the ENERGY by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they've found a way to desalinate water with much less energy, practically, that's huge.

  7. Wow! They'd have enough salt to last forever. by trout007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    God I loved "Top Secret"

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  8. Filtering abilities of graphene membranes by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just wonder if a graphene membrane could filter out the words "awesomely", "incredibly" and "super" from awesomely incredibly super texts, leaving only texts. *That* would be quite useful.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  9. The real link by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Informative

    The TFA is just a BS article that says nothing.
     
    A better link (and is in the TFA) is Nanoporous Graphene Could Outperform Best Commercial Water Desalination Techniques
     
    However that references Nanoporous graphene could outperform best commercial water desalination techniques
     
    Now we finally we get to the actual link Water Desalination across Nanoporous Graphene (which unfortunately you need to have the right credentials to see - which I don't)
     
    How come I can follow those links and the TFS can't?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:The real link by notjustchalk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the real article (AFAIK) from The Grossman Group @ MIT, no need for credentials.
      Water Desalination across Nanoporous Graphene (Warning PDF Link): http://zeppola.mit.edu/pubs/nl3012853.pdf

      The main site for the Grossman Group is also pretty fascinating: http://zeppola.mit.edu/

  10. trifecta by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Once we figure out how to make nanobots out of stem cells and graphene, every problem known to humanity will be solved!

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:trifecta by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Once we figure out how to make nanobots out of stem cells and graphene, every problem known to humanity will be solved!

      What about the as-of-yet unsolved problem of "Where shall we have lunch?"

      I think you're looking for http://www.wherethefuckshouldigotoeat.com/

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:trifecta by Spodi · · Score: 2

      Only if it improved battery life by 10x...

      That would only be possible if it is done in the cloud.

  11. The original paper by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a link to the original paper on Grossman's website.

    1. Re:The original paper by slug.slug · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thanks for the link. I skimmed through the paper and realized that this is a *theoretical simulation* of the process using molecular dynamics, so although with promising predictions, please give me a call when they actually have a working device.

  12. Re:Could you boost durability by stacking several? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    My $30 refrigerator water filter includes a 'block of carbon'. It even says so on the carton, though I sawed one open to see, and yes, a block of carbon.

    Anyways, that's still too porous to be very effective compared to RO or the new RO, Graphene.

    And virtually NO public water system in the U.S. relys exclusively on gravity. My birthplace pumped water up to on of two standpipes, which then used gravity to supply us water under pressure, but the pumps were needed. Even New York City pumpsm despite their supply coming from Upstate New York. At higher elevation. Friciton losses from the pipes, canals (?), and aqueucts negate that.

    But a graphene filter at the bottom of a standpipe could be a gravity solution, and all you need is a solution to clearing the filter and replacing it occasionally. That seems doable.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  13. Re:Um, no. by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think they're abusing the terminology a bit, using "RO" to refer to reverse osmosis conducted with existing membrane technologies. The point at issue is that thermodynamics demands that a certain amount of energy be expended in order to reduce the entropy of a homogeneous salt solution by separating it into pure (or at least low-salinity) water and high-salinity leftovers. This is totally independent of the means by which the molecules are separated. In reverse osmosis, that manifests as a minimum pressure necessary to force salt water through any selectively permeable membrane.

    Practical RO systems operate with a pressure drop (and therefore energy consumption per unit volume) that's double or triple the osmotic pressure, in order to achieve useful flow rates across thick membranes with relatively low pore densities. A better filter would allow that excess pressure to be reduced, but can't do anything about the cost of reducing the entropy.

    --

    Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
  14. Uhmm....I sense a problem with scale. by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Water molecule size, roughly 0.340 nm
    Salt molecule size, roughly 0.500 nm
    Graphene molecule size, roughly 0.142 nm
    Difference in size between water and salt molecule, roughly 0.160 nm
    The difference in size between water and salt is just barely more than the size of a single graphene molecule, so that leaves absolutely *NO* margin for error when designing the graphene sheet with those holes.

    This might very well have already been proven to really work... but I expect it would be extremely cost ineffective at larger scales owing to the consistent and extremely accurate precision that would be needed when trying to do this at a macroscopic scale.

    1. Re:Uhmm....I sense a problem with scale. by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not as big a problem as you'd think. In solution, you don't have molecules of NaCl; you have dissociated ions of Na+ and Cl-, each of which is surrounded by a cluster of rather tightly-bound water molecules. Those clusters are much larger than bare ions or single water molecules, so there's a fair range of pore sizes that will separate the ions from the water.

      --

      Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
  15. Re:Symposium at College of William & Mary by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    If others have found a way to abundance of energy, we won't need graphene to desalinate water.

    You'd still want both. If you need a given volume of water, you either need a process that's 1000x faster or 1000x the infrastructure. Infrastructure isn't cheap, no matter how much energy you have.

    That wouldn't be huge, that would be disruptive.

    Perhaps you've noticed the power structure doing less than the minimum it can excuse as valid in this area?

    1 - 3 July at College of William & Mary; International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium (ILENRS-12)

    cool, wish I could be there. I hope they choose to upload videos, for the good of mankind.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. Re:Forget about how long it takes, what's the ENER by imjustmatthew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Figure 8 on Page 6 of the actual paper shows what they're measuring. They're comparing filter materials by Salt rejection % vs Water permeability measured in L/cm2/day/MPa. That unit incorporates all the energy-efficeny goodness you want in a filter without looking at what pump technology is actually used to provide the energy input. It says that more filtered water (L) per square centimeter of filter (/cm2) per day (/day) per MegaPascal of pressure (/MPa, the energy input) is more good. Assuming any particular pump technology would give you a number for MPa/MJ that you could apply, but it doesn't help you understadn the performance of the filter itself. The figure for improvement vs existing technology they actually give is 2-3 orders of magnitude (100-1000x) so TFS is taking the optimistic side.

    The bottom line is that this has a huge potential but is still a ways from practical application.

  17. Re:Could you boost durability by stacking several? by I_am_Jack · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can purify water with activated carbon ("purify" is highly subjective, unless a governmental authority has taken the time to define it; otherwise, it's up to the marketing department). If you want to remove chlorine and objectionable tastes and odors, a simple activated carbon cartridge works great. If you want to remove heavier VOC's (volatile organic compounds) and THM's (trihalomethanes), you can use a compressed carbon block. And you can use a 1 micron absolute carbon block if you want to do all of the above, as well as achieve five log reduction (99.999%) in Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts, as well as removing 95% of lead in water (most lead found in water is particulate and not ionic).

    Desalinating is a little more complicated than this. Currently, there are three (fairly simple) methods of desalinating water: reverse osmosis, steam (or vapor compression) distillation, and de-ionization. RO is usually the preferred method, because a commercial RO unit can purify a high volume of sea water at around 70-90% efficiency.

    Steam or vapor compression distillation requires a lot of energy, leaves a massive amount of residue, and depending on mineral concentrations of the feed water, requires constant cleaning to prevent the equipment breaking down.

    De-ionization requires no energy, but depending on the type of DI resins used, can quickly exhaust the filter bed, requiring regeneration, which again, doesn't require a lot of energy, but it does have a chemical cost to strip and regenerate the Cation/Anion resins.

    Regardless of which method of desalination is being used, the feed water should be filtered to remove sediment and volatile organics (or post-filtration, in the case of DI).

    The graphene method is essentially creating a thin film membrane like RO. If you jump past the original article, and go to Water Online, the method proposed would be actually be using a thin film scaffolding to support the nano layer of graphene. At that point, you might as well use RO, unless the actual production models (the graphene method proposed is still highly theoretical as the authors admit that consistently producing graphene with a uniform pore diameter is not practical yet) would allow greater pure water production at higher efficiencies than currently available with RO.

    If you want to make ultra-pure water (say USP water-for-injection grade) you need to use a combination of all the above. What results you want will determine the method or number of steps required.

  18. Theory by Frankiezzz · · Score: 2

    This is a Theory, not a fact.. No such Graphene membrane exists or has even been invented yet. All they did was run a computer simulation, and then say that it should work this way IF somebody can invent the membrane.

  19. Graphene: by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 3, Funny

    The most useful substance never mass-produced.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  20. Don't really need to clean it as much as you think by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    RO is not like using a traditional filter. I'll see if I can explain it quickly without the explanation getting too muddy. The last RO project I worked on was in 1990 (and wasn't for salt, but same principles apply), but I doubt the basic structure of the equipment has changed much. Probably more changes are in the actual membranes.

    On an industrial scale membranes are placed in canisters and usually in large banks of them. The way the canister is built is usually a couple of sheets of membrane, sandwiching a substrate that allows a reasonable liquid flow rate through it, the whole is then spiral wound (like a roll of paper towel), or better yet, like film on a film winder that goes into a film development tank for those who remember film cameras and how to develop negatives :). The edges of the substrate and membranes are attached to a framework such that the purified liquid can be collected and channelled out either one or both ends of the spiral assembly when the assembly is inserted into a properly designed tube/canister. You put the wound membrane assembly in the tube that has one inlet and two or three outlets (depending on whether you want the purified liquid outlets at either end or just one). So say we have one feed outlet and one purified outlet. On the inlet side you flow your feed liquid at high pressure. One of the two outlets is your "purified" liquid and the other is an outlet for feed liquid.

    Because of the pressure differential between the feed side of the membrane and the substrate side of it, the "pure" liquid will be forced through and then flow through the substrate and the pure liquid outlet (at a much, much lower flow rate than the pressurized feed liquid). On the feed side of the membrane, this results in a slightly higher concentration as it passes the membrane and thus, the feed outlet side has a higher concentration of solute than the inlet. But you are always maintaining a flow across the membrane at high pressure and what you end up with is the slightly higher concentration liquid flowing out the far end from the inlet. Note that the downstream line from the canister is still under pressure.

    So you don't really need to backflush to clean it, or not as often as you might think. You always have a flow of material over the surface in low enough concentration to keep the salt in solution. Granted that sometimes they will chain membrane canisters, the outlet from one going into the next. Or they may have a feedback loop that keeps a set (higher) concentration on the outlet. This reduces the inlet flow and increases the concentration of the output, but it also increases the pressure required. Regardless, the membrane is usually kept from clogging from the movement of the feed.

    FWIW, in some systems you might want a certain concentration on the outlet to use as feed for another process. You might be able to use it to concentrate sugars, or even the salt we're talking about. The more water you squeeze out, the less you need to evaporate. But in the case of desalination, I can think of cheaper ways to get salt (like mining), but this serves as an example of what can be done.

    For maintenance in some operations (like for example, in the food industry), once the system is shut down, they will run cleaners through the system and if it needs to stay shut down for a period, they'll fill the system with purified water (if water is the output they can use that). They might add a bacterial inhibitor so that nothing could possibly grow and build up in the system. If they don't keep the canisters full of liquid they will dry out and usually become useless. And they are quite expensive.

    Pure water is not always what is sought after. Lower pressure RO, usually called ultra filtration has various uses. For instance, I saw one project using it in making raspberry juice. Don't ask me what they were doing with it, I just saw it in passing at a food research place. I was seconded to a research institute in a past life to study using RO to purify waste

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  21. Science reporting by deblau · · Score: 2

    Yeah.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  22. holes of any size? by stigmerger · · Score: 2

    Basically, the regular atomic structure of graphene means that you can create holes of any size

    Any size you want ... as long as it's this one.

  23. Water Filtration by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    When thinking of water filtration, a lot of you automatically conjure up a mental picture of a conventional water filter -- ie, dirty water poured from the top, and impurities get trapped in between, and clean clear water drips out from the bottom

    In large scale water filtration operation, that traditional top-down model does not work

    Instead, raw water is pumped into the inner tube of a double-layered pipe, which is slanted upwards, at a 30-60 degree angle

    Sections of wall of the inner tube are made up of filtering membrane - such as Graphene

    As the raw water flows upstream , and because of the smaller diameter of the inner tube , pressure building up inside the inner tube of the double layered pipe.

    Because of the higher pressure inside the inner tube, molecules of clean water flows out of the inner tube, through Graphene (or other filtration membrane), into the larger pipe on the outer layer of the double-layered pipe

    And because the pipe is slanting upward, gravity causes the filtered (clean) water in the outer pipe to flow down and eventually it gathers at a collecting point (usually a tank, or a pool) at the bottom

    At the top of the double-layered pipe, there is an opening for the inner-pipe for the impure-water to exit

    Because of the outlet, there is no need to do any "back flushing" since impurities, including salt, are continuously being flushed away

    Hope this helps
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !