Slashdot Mirror


New Paint Based On Titanium Nanoparticles Creates Self-Cleaning Surfaces

hypnosec writes: Scientists have created a paint that provides self-cleaning surfaces and can maintain them even after being wiped, scratched, or scuffed. The paint, composed of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, is delivered as a suspension in ethanol containing the chemical perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane (abstract). Once the coating is applied to a surface, the ethanol must evaporate for 180 seconds before it is ready for use. Depending on the surface, the coating can be sprayed, dipped, or painted.

87 comments

  1. Sounds cool by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't wait to spray my kitchen counter-tops with this difficult to pronounce but presumably safe material!

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's transparent, I want it on my windshield. Even if it wears off after a year, this is still a major win.

    2. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The joke is going to be on humanity when our kidneys get clogged with nano particles. Careless manufacturing and reckless use of nano particle anything could be trouble in the future. But don't worry nothing will happen for 10 or more years, then we will have to create new laws and regulations and try to remove the stuff like we do lead paint and asbestos. Carry on people, no worries!

    3. Re:Sounds cool by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      The joke is going to be on humanity when our kidneys get clogged with nano particles.

      Stop being so alarmist. Our lungs will get clogged way before that.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Sounds cool by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Careless manufacturing and reckless use of nano particle anything could be trouble in the future. But don't worry nothing will happen for 10 or more years

      All ready being noted. Not 10 years down the track. Sunscreens as a Source of Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Coastal Waters

      Conservative estimates for a Mediterranean beach reveal that tourism activities during a summer day may release on the order of 4 kg of TiO2 nanoparticles to the water and produce an increment in the concentration of H2O2 of 270 nM/day. Our results, together with the data provided by tourism records in the Mediterranean, point to TiO2 nanoparticles as the major oxidizing agent entering coastal waters, with direct ecological consequences on the ecosystem.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with the other A/C on this. I am concerned there will be many unforeseen problems connected to excessive nano particle use.

    6. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't sound cool in the least. Nano tech should not be used on or in anything residential or that day to day humans have any contact with. Industrial applications that are closely monitored at all times, sure. But this shit is going to kill us faster than pesticides, genetically modified "food" and the crap used to carry vaccines.

      Thank you government, you are creating a people that is totally dependent on you as you slowly kill off your entire population.

    7. Re:Sounds cool by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      What leads you to believe this is going to inherently be harmful to us? It's mostly a new field, and at least some of the technology could be harmful if handled improperly, but all I'm seeing regarding solid evidence seems to be AC posts that are basically just shrieking 'nanotech is bad, mmkay.' The concept of superhydrophobic surfaces apparently stems from studying lily pads, which have notably not resulted in the end of humanity. I'm not saying there isn't a danger, but you are doing nobody a favor by just bringing up a concern without good reason. Makes you come off as a shill.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Sounds cool by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If it's transparent, I want it on my windshield. Even if it wears off after a year, this is still a major win.

      You can use Rain-X and have it wear off after a week, or one of the many various hydrophobic coatings-in-a-can and have it last maybe a month, right now.

      If I rode a motorcycle I'd put it on the visor, that actually seems practical.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's "self-cleaning" why would I be wiping it?
      I'm guessing that means I can spill slimy food grease on it, walk away, and 10 minutes later my counter will be clean!

    10. Re:Sounds cool by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      nanoMoles per day? That seems like it might disperse easily.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    11. Re:Sounds cool by daenris · · Score: 3, Informative

      Production of nanoparticle titanium dioxide is definitely hazardous. Titanium dioxide dust, present during production, is a possible carcinogen. Nanoparticle titanium dioxide has also been shown to cause genetic damage in mice. That said, I don't think there's evidence that the nanoparticles or powder present in paint pigment and sunscreen, for example, actually cause adverse effects in humans to this point, so it's unclear whether these coatings would be a concern or not.

    12. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you closely monitor all nanoparticles in applications? Or are you just completely guessing.

    13. Re:Sounds cool by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nano particles can cross the blood brain barrier. What makes you think that's A-OK? Surely that warrants caution at the least?

      Lilly pads and similar have a significant nano-structure, not a coating of nano particles.

    14. Re:Sounds cool by Echo_Hotel · · Score: 1

      "been shown to cause genetic damage in mice"
      Well there go my plans for scotch guarding my mice.
      But seriously Citation Needed, "been shown to cause genetic damage in mice" is the "Kills Cancer Cells in a Petri Dish" of hazardous chemicals.

    15. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beavis: [grabs throat] My liver! My liver!
      Butthead: Lower, dude.
      Beavis: [grabs crotch] My liver! My liver!

    16. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget lily pads are made by nature as intended. not man, who can't do anything correctly... growing food is easy, if you follow nature, but once you start fucking around with it at the genetic level (not just cross breeding through POLLEN or grafting to make "dwarf trees") then you've totally, irreversibly fucked your food supply. Oh, wait, we've already done that.

      Fortunately there are a few smart people who still use seeds not touched by Monesanto

    17. Re:Sounds cool by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      But this shit is going to kill us faster than pesticides, genetically modified "food" and the crap used to carry vaccines.

      So faster than never? That sounds like something I can live with to be honest.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    18. Re:Sounds cool by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 0

      What leads you to believe this is going to inherently be harmful to us?

      It's made from those pesky chemical thingys.

    19. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL

      The year 2025. . . . .

      " Did you or a loved one use ( insert nano-tech based product here ) and suffer from kidney or lung failure ? If you answered yes, call us right now ! You may be entitled to a cash settlement "

      The law offices of MakeaBuck

    20. Re:Sounds cool by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Caution is definitely warranted. It's something new that behaves in a different manner. However, a few ACs have been posting uninformative panic posts without a clear reason why.. Crossing the blood-brain barrier is something to be aware of, but would that be likely to happen for anything other than eating something covered in nano particles? Extra caution would definitely be warranted if used in a medical device or with food.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    21. Re:Sounds cool by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      made by nature as intended

      Realized right there that there was an incredibly low chance of you putting together a coherent argument, and a high probability of an appeal to nature fallacy.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    22. Re:Sounds cool by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the particles can become airborne at all (for example, applying or scraping a coating), they will almost certainly cross either through the lungs to the blood and then to the brain, or directly through the olfactory bulb.

      IIRC there has been some research to show that nano droplets do make it to the brain while larger droplets do not.

      Many safety filter masks block micron scale but not nano scale particles. Particles that small have a way of diffusing everywhere.

      This suggests that even a long safety record for a substance is nearly meaningless once it is formed into nano-particles.

      That is not to say there can never be a safe use, particularly if the particles can be affixed to a surface firmly enough to count as nano-structure, but it suggests that our existing rules of thumb for safety are worthless here.

    23. Re:Sounds cool by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Okay. One more question, if you don't mind. Do you think the risks may be offset somewhat by nanoparticles having less mass, and would being nanoscale also prevent them from being carried effectively through the bloodstream?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    24. Re:Sounds cool by sjames · · Score: 1

      While each particle has less mass, the total mass of substance is what matters to effects on a person. In particular, the mass that makes it to the brain.

      If anything, I would expect a low mass to facilitate being carried in the blood. Consider, water can easily carry dust but very rarely boulders.

      One other interesting application of nano-scale features is to make sterile surfaces. The nano features essentially shred cell membranes. This has implications for the effect on human health of free floating particles.

    25. Re:Sounds cool by pepty · · Score: 1

      But don't worry nothing will happen for 10 or more years

      People have been talking about self cleaning paint made from TiO2 suspended in perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane for almost 10 years. Should we worry?

    26. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nano particles can cross the blood brain barrier.

      Well, that is good news for all the dirty minds out there.

    27. Re:Sounds cool by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. What's left behind is pretty damn close to being inert. The nasty reactive stuff evaporates so that you can more easily breath it in.

    28. Re:Sounds cool by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A thing that makes that slightly less alarming is all that titanium oxide based beach and dune sand we make the sunscreen out of - some of that has a pretty small grain size.

    29. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safe? This stuff causes cancer. LMAO!

    30. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what color of paint comes from titanium oxide. I'm also wondering if I should google before posting to /.

    31. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Aquapel instead, it hold between 6 - 12 months, just make sure you apply it properly or you'll get weird hazy effect.

    32. Re:Sounds cool by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Just FYI from a rider, there is some conflicting information out there:

      https://rideapart.com/articles...

      > Every helmet maker ever will tell you not to apply Rain-X or something similar to your visor. However, weâ(TM)ve been doing it for years with no ill effects. It causes water to quickly bead up and run off, aiding vision. Itâ(TM)s said to reduce the effective life of your shield, but weâ(TM)re replacing our clear visors once a year anyway due to scratches and whatnot. So itâ(TM)s definitely worth considering if youâ(TM)re regularly riding in wet road conditions.

      http://www.triumphrat.net/spri...

      > First, what is Rain-X and why is it a problem for visors? Itâ(TM)s a mixture of ethanol, acetone and isopropyl alcohol with a bit of silicone thrown it. Those three solventsâ"quite aggressiveâ"super clean the surface and leave behind a molecular layer of silicone that causes water to bead and shed. The product was originally intended for glass windshields and the company that currently owns the trademarkâ"ITW Brandsâ"says it is not recommend for plastic. The problem material is the acetone, which can soften and craze acrylics and polycarbonates.
      .
      .
      .
      >> The best reason not to use Rain-X is that there are better cleaner/rain-repellant products, specifically paste-type cleaners that are basically emulsifiers with a little isopropyl alcohol thrown in as a solvent and silicone or wax to act as surfactants, causing water to bead and blow off. I tested a half dozen of these and the two best were LP Acrylic Polish and Sealant and 210 Plastic Scratch Remover. Others, such as Plexus, perform similarly.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  2. Isn't Titanium Oxide by stox · · Score: 0

    The primary pigment in white paint?

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Isn't Titanium Oxide by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. It is Titanium Dioxide which is what makes white paint white.

      I am assuming that the secret sauce here is the perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane. Whatever the hell that is...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Isn't Titanium Oxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is usually. I couldn't get past the paywall, but I think there's two things here. First, I think the binder is designed to not be chewed up by the effect, and also be able to take a mechanical and chemical beating from the elements, like how it mentioned sandpaper and oil. Second, it claims nanoparticles. The paint you buy at the store is probably going to have particles typically on the order of 1-100 microns.

    3. Re:Isn't Titanium Oxide by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Also the white stuff you put on your nose for sunscreen.

      And the stuff you put on a baby's bottom for diaper rash.

      I'm guessing most everyone has already been exposed to some level of nano-particles already.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Isn't Titanium Oxide by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm guessing most everyone has already been exposed to some level of nano-particles already.

      The old timers call it smoke, or dust... in L.A., smog.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Isn't Titanium Oxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A fluoroorganosiloxane makes a coating of teflon-like molecules (like T-Fal(R)) that can adhere to metal oxide surfaces. You can find similar fluoroorganosiloxanes in glass/coating protection products.

      I think that this is interesting but if someone wants to do this cheap, then use diatomaceous earth that is coated with this compound. I sometimes wonder why that our nano-nano science needs to make something that is already found in nature.

    6. Re:Isn't Titanium Oxide by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      ^ this comment deserves an informative way more than my comment. Unfortunately it is by an AC, so no one to get credit.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Advances in toilet technology? by kheldan · · Score: 1

    So when can I go get a toilet I'll never have to clean ever again?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Advances in toilet technology? by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

      When you stop using the toilet.

    2. Re:Advances in toilet technology? by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      You are jesting, but I just replaced an old toilet with a new one specifically because the old one got dirty quickly and was hard to clean. The replacement has brilliant gleaming smooth porcelain which is very easy to clean. As a bonus it is dual-flush low-flow throne-height. A new toilet might significantly cut down your toilet cleaning. It took me 45 minutes all by myself to do the chore. Half of the job was removing the old toilet.

    3. Re:Advances in toilet technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use NeverWet on the plunger. Works pretty well. Now I don't have to keep the plunger in some kind of disgusting bag or container. Just shake it a little bit and put it back down on the floor. I keep a paper towel under it but it never actually gets wet.

      But it's quite a chore to apply the coating. The kit comes with a primer and the coating, and it's about a 30-45 minute process.

      The bad reviews you'll see on Amazon and elsewhere are mostly from people trying to put it on their shoes and other random stuff. It leaves a milky haze, which people putting on shoes or clothing freak out about. Also, it probably wears away more quickly on heavily used items.

      But it's perfect for something like a plunger. Unless you have bowel problems or something and use the plunger often.

    4. Re:Advances in toilet technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes:
      http://www.amazon.com/CST744SG-01-2-Piece-Elongated-Sanagloss/dp/B0012HBQK8
      Sanagloss is Toto's nano-coating; it certainly works ok, though it's not foolproof. But the Toto Drake is just an awesome toilet, with or without the nano coating.

    5. Re:Advances in toilet technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just buy the Rubbermaid Clean & Dry Plunger - it has that NeverWet stuff already on. It's pretty amazing.

  4. The only thing self-cleaning is a soap bar by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    Everything else always ends up requiring my help, whether it SAYS "self-cleaning" or not.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:The only thing self-cleaning is a soap bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ever looked at a bar of soap? They get really hairy

    2. Re:The only thing self-cleaning is a soap bar by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And full of soap residue.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  5. winter sports game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cant wait to paint my snowboard.

  6. Long term safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't help but wonder if a decade or generation after this surface treatment becomes widespread we won't be reliving the lead paint or asbestos abatement programs we have today, as these miracle materials start to break down and contaminate the environment with unhealthy nanoparticles.

    1. Re:Long term safety by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's already being studied. Asbestos is dangerous because it creates naturally occurring nanoparticles. It's not chemically toxic.

      These types of manufactured nanoparticles, including carbon nanotubes, won't see widespread use until they're shown to be safe.

    2. Re:Long term safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Technically, the reason asbestos is dangerous is the fact that the fractured pieces are like very tiny arrows that pierce the cells of your lung linings and some of them damage DNA and can lead to cancer.

    3. Re:Long term safety by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      Correct. And carbon nanotubes are structurally pretty similar.

  7. perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TiO2 is not the magic ingredient here, I think that's fairly obvious.

  8. Safe and Tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It sounds so safe and fully tested, here is an MSDS:
    http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/MSDS/MSDS/DisplayMSDSPage.do?country=US&language=en&productNumber=667420&brand=ALDRICH&PageToGoToURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sigmaaldrich.com%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Faldrich%2F667420%3Flang%3Den

    STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
    Reactivity: No data available
    Possibility of hazardous reactions: No data available
    Conditions to avoid: May form explosive mixtures in air. Direct sources of heat..

    TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
    Acute toxicity: No data available
    Inhalation: No data available
    Dermal: No data available
    Skin corrosion/irritation: No data available
    Serious eye damage/eye irritation: No data available
    Respiratory or skin sensitisation: No data available
    Germ cell mutagenicity: No data available

    ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
    Toxicity: No data available
    Persistence and degradability: No data available
    Bioaccumulative potential: No data available
    Mobility in soil: No data available

    What could go wrong with all the NO DATA? /sarcasm

    1. Re:Safe and Tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ^ So in other words it passes EPA approval with flying colors (and some 'donations' and future jobs in the industry).

    2. Re:Safe and Tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Exhibits no known hazardous environmental effects".

      Keyword being "known". Since you don't have any data, it *must* be ok.

    3. Re:Safe and Tested? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      It's not fully tested. However, I'm also not seeing any indication that this is being commercially released yet. So, perhaps it's a bit early to be complaining about not having tested it enough.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Safe and Tested? by itzly · · Score: 1

      As long as there's no public science that says it's dangerous, there's no reason for EPA to stop widespread use.

  9. Dammit, I can't wait that long by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

    the ethanol must evaporate for 180 seconds

    I can only wait for 179 seconds. This stuff is useless for me.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Dammit, I can't wait that long by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      My window of patience is 188.49555921538757 seconds, the time it takes to bake a pie.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  10. This material has been used on windows by Streetlight · · Score: 3, Informative

    For many years you can buy windows or window glass with this nano-particle titanium dioxide applied which made windows self cleaning. It sounds like the paint is just an extension of the earlier technology. Besides, which is harder to clean: your counter top or the outside of a half-dozen windows three stories up on your house? Sure, some windows are easy to clean because either the frames tllt inwards or are removable from inside, but not having to bother to do any cleaning sounds best to me

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:This material has been used on windows by sexconker · · Score: 1

      For many years you can buy windows or window glass with this nano-particle titanium dioxide applied which made windows self cleaning. It sounds like the paint is just an extension of the earlier technology. Besides, which is harder to clean: your counter top or the outside of a half-dozen windows three stories up on your house? Sure, some windows are easy to clean because either the frames tllt inwards or are removable from inside, but not having to bother to do any cleaning sounds best to me

      3 stories up? Please. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:This material has been used on windows by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      they are not durable coatings though, only good for skyscrapers and only if your definition of "clean" is pretty loose.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. application license required? by acdc_rules · · Score: 1

    Ethanol? Will I be able to paint this on myself without a license? This is not a water based paint here.

    1. Re:application license required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can paint with it yourself but you need a bartender's license to mix it.

    2. Re:application license required? by mlts · · Score: 1

      A lot of airbrush body paints are alcohol based.

    3. Re:application license required? by acdc_rules · · Score: 1

      i was thinking about the fumes being toxic at the levels they might be implying. Tattoos might release grams of fumes, vs. litres on several walls in a room.

    4. Re:application license required? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      A lot of airbrush body paints are alcohol based.

      Airbrush body paint? Never heard of it. Doesn't it tickle?

  12. Crayons by aaronb1138 · · Score: 2

    As the oldest of 5 children, one thought came to mind. How well does it stand up to crayons? I would assume from the hydrophobic nature it will have no problems with water based markers, though I am curious on how well it handles Sharpies and other solvent based ones.

    1. Re:Crayons by linear+a · · Score: 2

      I'm wondering if it can ever be painted over again without having to strip the old stuff off. Probably yes with the right (perhaps custom) primer I'd guess.

  13. old idea that was on /., but for CO2 by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    This is the same idea, but applied to breaking down CO2.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. Cool by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    But then again, at the beginning, so was asbestos.

    1. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, around 2,000BC those guys where so going "Cool, dude!".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

  15. I read the video's title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Mary Poppins....

  16. Next-gen Cerakote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like Cerakote but using titanium instead of ceramic particles

    Cerakote and other powder coat paint products are generally used on firearms, car parts, knives, etc.

  17. Perfect for windshields. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    If they can figure optically clear and at least some durability it could revolutionize cars and planes by makeing self cleaning self wiping windscreens.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  18. magic ingredient: perfluorodecyltrichlorosilane by slew · · Score: 2

    AFAIK, FDTS is already used to coat MEMS-like devices (e..g, microfluid channels and nano-lithography stamps) because it chemically forms a monolayer coating that is lubricating and moisture resistant. Unfortunately, it is a bit nasty as it is highly corrosive, flammable chemical that smells a bit like hydrochloric acid.

    The interesting thing with this is that they found a way to coat titanium dioxide nanoparticles (the same stuff in sunblock and some white paints) with it and create a suspension in ethanol so you can apply it like paint over an adhesive and it drys in a way that sticks to the adhesive in a way that they claim to be somewhat robust against damage. Here's the video and some supplementary material...

    I'm not exactly sure how the adhesive (basically claimed to use "evo-stick" apparently some ethyl-acetate based adhesive like superglue available in the UK) sticks to the coated nanoparticles, but still is lubricating on the other side though (a similar problem with non-stick frying pans). There doesn't appear to be much discussion about this and my chemistry-fu is a bit rusty... Maybe some kind of covalent layer bonding or something...

  19. Subtitles by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Sure glad they have those subtitles so we can understand whatever language that guy is speaking.

  20. hmmm by EthanDemurs · · Score: 1

    I wonder how well this will work on my tube socks.... My tube socks that I play softball in of course.

  21. Right On by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Exactly what the new Sex Robot Sex Hotels in Japan needs desperately ... how to clean up after the mess.

    Ha ha.

  22. First minute of powder metallurgy 101 by dbIII · · Score: 1

    First minute of powder metallurgy 101 - asbestos, why it kills people and how your finely divided stuff can kill you too unless you take steps to make sure it does not. Thus everyone who works in this sort of "nano" research is very aware of the issue you seem to think they are not aware of.

  23. a new low for Science reviewers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just because there is not a peer-reviewed paper on this specific material and application does not mean it is unknown to science and mankind.
    I wonder what the commercial scientists who actually made this stuff think about these guys. Ultimately, this is probably a good thing for the actual inventors as maybe more people will buy their stuff.

    This material (titanium oxide nanoparticles with perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane) is already commercialized and used in cosmetics. The authors make a point that these materials are commercially available. They're commercially available because someone else developed them specifically for creating self-cleaning super-hydrophobic coatings, found customers, opened a factory in Brazil, and started distributing the material out of New Jersey. So... this is not exactly cutting edge.

    Can you buy an ethanol based suspension at Walgreens? No, but you can buy an expensive face cream based on this material at Walgreens. It hardly seems surprising that a material that is known to be (and advertised as) super-hydrophobic, super-oleophobic and rub-resistant can be suspended in ethanol and painted on a surface.

    So why don't we see this stuff everywhere? Because it's crazy expensive to make, it doesn't deal with high temperatures so well, and it's opaque. It's used in more than just cosmetics, but it doesn't have the right properties for a lot of consumer focused applications.

  24. Dunkin Donuts Took This Out Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/03/05/dunkin-donuts-to-remove-titanium-dioxide-from-its-powdered-sugar/

    This is the same stuff Dunkin Donuts just took out of their food. Scary
    Causes cancer, imagine that and someone stated to put this on their Kitchen counter tops....lmao!

  25. Re:magic ingredient: perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane by jhantin · · Score: 1

    This uses POTS, not FDTS, so there are ethoxy groups instead of chlorine atoms bound to the silicon. Still flammable, but POTS is innocuous enough that it's used to coat pigment particles in cosmetics.

    I suspect even FDTS gets a lot less nasty once a coating settles in. R1-Si-Cl + H-O-R2 -> R1-Si-O-R2 + HCl, the HCl escapes as a gas and the rest stays put, covalently bonded to the surface.

    --
    ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k