Scientists Turn Paper Waste Into Aerogel (inhabitat.com)

Kristine Lofgren writes: A team of scientists have successfully turned paper waste into aerogel. Aerogels are used in insulation, and they are usually made out of polymers and silica. But a research team at the National University of Singapore managed to make the highly sought-after product using recycled paper, which could have huge implications not only for the rate at which we are filling up our landfills, but also for the amount of chemicals that we are producing and releasing into the environment.

Comments

And how does this help children?

[Anonymous Coward]

This corporate sponsored "science" is bad for us all.

Re: And how does this help children?

[Anonymous Coward]

For Republicans, it's all about profit instead of people.

Re: And how does this help children?

[Anonymous Coward]

For Republicans, it's all about profit instead of people.

The Republicans in Singapore? Wow, I didn't realize we had any.

Re:And how does this help children?

[dohzer]

Yup. Children are the only things that matter.
Screw everyone else!

Re:And how does this help children?

[gstoddart]

Well, they could make aerogel out of children if that makes you feel better.

Seriously? Why must every scientific advancement help children?

Re:And how does this help children?

[EzInKy]

Children are the future, everyone else is the past.

Re:And how does this help children?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex.

Re:And how does this help children?

[EzInKy]

No matter what you think, children will grow up and they will have sex. By the way, meemaws have sex too Sheldon.

Re:And how does this help children?

[Anonymous Coward]

On behalf of those of us not having kids ... who gives a crap?

Your future, your fucking problem.

Let's do cool science now, if the little bastards live, they'll thank us. Otherwise, that's their fucking problem.

Re: And how does this help children?

[gl4ss]

basically thats all you have in singapore, doofus. singapore is all about profit.

Re: And how does this help children?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed that he was joking, didn't you?

Re:And how does this help children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Children are also the past, the childrens future children is the future!

Re:And how does this help children?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it helps the children, then the non-scientific-but-family-supporting member of [Legislature] will be more likely to vote in favor of giving you grant money (or increasing grant money available to the group that actually doles it out.

Because everything is political nowadays. Even science and findings of truth.

fire!

[blogagog]

It seems like it would be difficult to make a mostly paper product flame retardant.

Re:fire!

[rmdingler]

It seems like it would be difficult to make a mostly paper product flame retardant.

Well sure, but for those of you /. posters who routinely work Mission Impossible, the very difficult is rather mundane.

Re:fire!

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is: it's mostly air, not paper.

Re:fire!

[Fly Swatter]

Recycled paper is already used to make cellulose insulation, and has been for many years. By necessity it is full of flame retardants. It is nothing new.

The actual article only mentions insulation in passing, in the picture it looks more like a standard foam product. Nothing like cellulose insulation. They hope to initially use it for cleaning up oil spills.

Re:fire!

[choprboy]

It seems like it would be difficult to make a mostly paper product flame retardant.

Actually it is quite easy. Finely shredded paper is commonly used as a high-R value blown-in insulation for attics and wall cavities. The paper is treated with boric acid which acts as a flame retardant.

Re:fire!

[del_diablo]

Aerogel is solid smoke, or solid gas, per definition. Or at the least thats the wikipedia simplified explanation.
So paper contains chemicals that can be used to make one form of solid smoke.
Now here is the important thing about Aerogel: All forms of it has different properties, outside of being extremely insulating, and extremely non dense(light), and usually quite hard. Further properties depend on what its made from.
Some are super fragile, some can bend, etc.

Re:fire!

[Harlequin80]

Nope, very easy in fact. Shredded paper is one of the best roof insulations you can get and it is treated with boric acid to make it fire retardant. Here is a link to someone hitting Cool or Cosy (a brand name version of shredded paper insulation) with a blow torch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:fire!

[dsmatthews9379]

Boron, moron.

Re:fire!

[Anonymous Coward]

This. It is definitely not new. Treated with boric acid recycled paper works very well as a fire retardant and studies of sublimation (temperature, humidity and vibration) showed the treatments are also very stable.

Re:fire!

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is: it's mostly _space_ not paper. That is the attraction for oil absorption.
I'd like to see tests on Hydrogen entrapping, or any Molecular Sieve applications.

Re:fire!

[Rei]

Huh? You want to trap hydrogen in an open cell substance?

Re:fire!

[Rei]

Aerogel is of course nothing at all like loose-fill cellulose insulation. But no, it should not pose a fire risk either. Depending on the type, aerogels are generally considered either fire retardant or non-flammable; even if they're made of something that "burns" on a macroscopic level, there's so little "something" there to burn that the flame barrier properties that they provide generally well outweighs the heat output of their own combustion.

Re:fire!

[Rei]

Because nobody doesn't like molten boron!

Re:fire!

[ledow]

Try and light a matchbox.

Re:fire!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I would have thought it evplosive, like coal or corn dust, well distributed thru a volume of air.

Re:fire!

[Immerman]

Has anyone actually managed to create a "vacuum-filled" aerogel? My understanding was that they were typically open-celled structures created by replacing the water in a gel with air. Though I suppose if the strength was sufficient you could encase it in an airtight skin and then pump out the air. That might have applications for rigid lighter-than-air craft, or as even more effective insulation. At least until a few days after a pinprick forms somewhere in the skin.

Of course the air can then be replaced by something else quite rapidly, giving them impressive absorption properties. Essentially they're an extremely low-mass sponge.

Re:fire!

[Creepy]

The 1960s era insulation in my attic is exactly that - shredded newspaper treated with fire retardant. The main problem with it is that it tends to settle more than fiberglass and apparently doesn't insulate as well after it settles. Mine had dropped a good 6" (15cm) when I had additional fiberglass insulation blown in.

Re:fire!

[Immerman]

I would have thought similarly, but Wikipedia says otherwise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel). Perhaps a flame-front can't advance fast enough through a rigid structure?

Heat cannot spread through aerogels quickly, nor can the expanding hot air front spread further into the fuel, so I'm guessing only the outermost surface can be thermally catalyzed, and thanks to their incredibly low density there's not going to be a lot of other fuel within range of a burning molecule to absorb the energy before convection carries it away from the surface.

Re:fire!

[Immerman]

Well, that's more of a common nickname based on appearance than a definition, there's not really anything else smokelike about them except density. Calling someone a carrot-top doesn't make them a vegetable.

Re:fire!

[spazzmo]

Yeah, I've always wondered about aerogel airships.

Make a lot, cover with a skin that won't leak, fill from the bottom. Hydrogen gas is less leaky that helium (as He is monatomic).

So, would the aerogel slow the rate of combustion if there was an incendiary accident at a puncture site due to there being a less of an interface with the atmospheric oxygen compared to a balloon? Well, probably not with a paper aerogel, say a silicon one.

And how would the reaction progress through the aerogel? If it was slow enough/not fatally toxic it would make the hydrogen gas safe.

"Attention passengers, we have a fire in the top forward gelsac, we will be landing shortly. Passengers will then disembark into inflatable life-rafts."

Any physicists care to comment?

Re:fire!

[spazzmo]

Sorry, just read further, looks like it would work, even with paper. The only question is the rate of the reaction.

Re:fire!

[Immerman]

Hmm, on further though, we could fill the aerogel with hydrogen gas - that shouldn't alter the density much compared to being "vacuum filled", and would only a skin that prevented mixing, rather than preventing pressurized leaks. That would essentially eliminate the risks of leaks with even an extremely thin skin, while the aerogel would maintain a rigid airform and essentially eliminate the risk of fires. As of 2013 aerographene had been made with evacuated densities as low as 160g/m^3, compared to 1,225g/m^3 for air at STP, and 89g/m^3 for hydrogen, so you could get 976g/m^3 of lift at sea level. Not quite as good as helium, but you get the rigid airframe for free.

The real question would be how well could it survive pressure changes - a traditional airship has to reduce it's density as it climbs to avoid over-inflating and rupturing - aerogel ships would presumably have to do the same, but depending on gel porosity that could take a lot longer to get the air our (or back in again)

Re:fire!

[Immerman]

Are you sure about hydrogen being less leaky that helium? I thought it was the other way around - yes, helium is monatomic, but hydrogen is a lot smaller. The result being, as best I can gather, that an H2 molecule is slightly larger than a helium atom along its long dimension, but notable smaller along its short one.

Then again perhaps I'm thinking of hydrogen under pressure, where it will eventually pass through even solid steel tank walls. I've never heard of helium having such issues, but that could simply be because there are far fewer applications for high-pressure helium storage.

heh.

[Black Parrot]

A new way to deal with your rejected papers.

Re:heh.

[penguinoid]

"This paper has virtually zero substance."

0.04 g/cm^3, to be precise.

Cheaper?

[sims 2]

What I want to know is if it will be cheaper as right now even a small sample of areogel costs a small fortune.

Its supposed to be one of the very best insulation materials but its always been extremely cost prohibitive to insulate your house with it.

Re:Cheaper?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, the cost of the raw materials in current Aerogels is as cheap as dirt. Some of them _are_ dirt.
The Manufacturing Processes are what makes them expensive.

"...developed the technique by mulching paper to extract cellulose fibers and then mixed them with water. They added a polymer resin and then the solution is agitated by sound in a process known as sonication. It’s then poured into molds, frozen, freeze dried for two days, and cured in a 120 C (248 F) oven."

Hey, this is a FRP technique. You can build hulls of boats this way. They are already using Vacuum Bagging and Ovens. Just wheel in a few Dewars of LN and apply the right-sized Sonic Screwdriver at the right time, and you have the core of a very light and very strong Hull, which can be wrapped inside and out with Carbon Fiber roving, slathered with some Epoxy, and baked again.

Also- Surfboards.

Re:Cheaper?

[Rei]

I fail to see how it's at all like composite building - it's a moulded product. Also note: frozen and freeze dried for two days. So if you want to make boats out of the stuff, you have to amortize in the cost of two days (per unit) usage of a thermally-regulated vacuum chamber large enough to put a boat in, which is a pretty expensive piece of kit.

Also, how long is the sonication process?

Making boats or surfboards out of the stuff sounds kind of pointless. As you already clearly know, the ideal boat hull is a twinwall composite, where you have composite layers of high tensile fabric bonded to either side of a lightweight foam or honeycomb core - the latter existing primarily to space the former out. If you replace the inner layer with aerogel, you're only cutting out the weight of the foam or honeycomb - and foams and honeycombs are already quite light. I mean, you'd save some weight... but enough to justify the cost and difficulty?

I guess if you're going really upmarket... after all, some people buy Monster cables ;)

Re:Cheaper?

[whit3]

What I want to know is if it will be cheaper as right now even a small sample of areogel costs a small fortune. Its supposed to be one of the very best insulation materials but its ...cost prohibitive to insulate your house with it.

It should be less expensive than silica aerogel (which is made of quartz, and requires elaborate drying in an autoclave-like pressure cooker). That's because freeze-drying is a cheap way to remove liquid from the voids (and you NEED LOTS OF VOIDS).

It's unclear, however, if the mean-free-path for vapor movement is as small as a 'conventional' silica aerogel (the sample looks opaque, so probably the voids/walls are larger than wavelength of light). Silica aerogels for insulation are glass-clear (but slightly smoky) because the structure is nanometer-scale. It's unclear what cellulose does to 'improve' the product, and unclear that the product is durable.

It's called 'biodegradable' but does that mean fungus will nibble it to nothing inside a year? Even a slow-moving variant on wood rot could quickly destroy a nanostructure. It's shown as flexible, which would be good (part of the cost of insulating a house with aerogel, is that you have to size all the house stud spacings to exactly the dimensions of factory-cut aerogel panels).

Landfill?!

[troon]

could have huge implications not only for the rate at which we are filling up our landfills

Wouldn't aerogel fill our landfills much faster than in its original, denser form?

Re:Landfill?!

[Rei]

Until it crushes. Not all aerogels are strong, and in the picture we can see the guy bending it. And even the strength of "strong" aerogels is often overstated - they're high strength for their weight, but not for their volume.

Re:Landfill?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but paper is pretty much the most recyclable substance we use, and the most common alternative waste-stream (i.e. people actually do separate paper and the separated paper actually is streamed separately). There are literally hundreds of used for old paper and card, and if there weren't it's biodregradable anyway, and it burns. The idea that "paper filling up landfills" is a problem that needs solving in 2016 just seems ridiculous.

Re: Landfill?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Paper in landfills sequesters atmospheric CO2. Just saying.

Re:Landfill?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been entertained by this automatic notion that putting stuff in a landfill is somehow bad. It presupposes so many things that it makes for some terrible "science":

  - That you're running out of space. At least in North America (where I am, and where I hear of this a lot) this simply isn't the case except in large cities. This is also not an environmental issue, rather, it's a simple economics issue which is self-solving (cost of storing stuff goes up as the easy space is used, once the cost is too high, people will be arsed to recycle).
  - That you're running out of stuff. This might be true for certain items, but typically, the issue is pushed for things which we have huge surpluses of (paper, metal, plastics). That is also not an environmental issue unless getting that stuff is particularly hard on the environment compared to recycling it. As it stands now, most of it is break even or worse on the environment for recycling. My favourite example is paper. Burying that in a landfill effectively buries CO2. The trees being cut are almost exclusively farmed nowadays. They never would have existed without a new need for paper. Also, if you're running out, seems like the obvious answer is mining old landfills.
  - Leeching. This is at least an actual environmental issue, but was solved a few decades ago. Chances are very low you're using a landfill today that has significant issues with leeching, but they're not zero, and I'm certain you can find some examples for me. If your local landfill has this issue, encourage your city to close it and open one that doesn't have an issue. Don't encourage them to keep it open longer by reducing the level of waste entering it.
  - Nasty things going in there (see above). Yes, an environmental issue. I'm not going to complain that throwing lead acid batteries in the trash is illegal, or that throwing 20 lb propane cylinders in a garbage truck is a bad idea. This one is obvious, but applies to a rather limited set of items.
  - Composting. Of all the complaints, this is the one that gets me. If there's one thing that isn't harmful in a landfill, it's a banana peel. All it does is take up space. This isn't an environmental issue, it's an economics issue, best solved by stopping free garbage pickup and moving to a solution that is profitable (ie: You pay for the weight and what you dump, if handling it is difficult).
  - Smell. Well, you got me here. Smell sucks. Only way you can eliminate that is to either put the landfill somewhere intelligent, only accept dry goods (which are usually the recyclables), or eliminate landfills altogether (probably not going to happen).
  - Energy consumption taking stuff to the landfill. Today this is an environmental issue, because the source of energy for most garbage trucks is fossil fuels. It's only a very short matter of time before we electrify this fleet, at which point the power can be any number of perfectly "green" sources. A temporary excuse with a limited lifetime.

That running out of space is the biggest excuse is just sad and shows a lack of planning by your town. The worst is the solutions most towns take are, quite literally, the worst possible ones. Household waste is typically by far the smallest consumer of landfill space, but is the first one targeted. The last one to be hit, which I've NEVER seen told no, is the construction industry, which is by far the largest consumer of landfill space. But honestly, if space is the issue, at least in North America, you're doing your planning wrong. Oh well. I guess I'll throw my rotten tomatoes in the compost bin, not because it makes a lick of sense to target that first if your engineering skills failed, but I have better things to do than pay even more ~~taxes~~ fines to the cities. //rant off

Re: Landfill?!

[NatasRevol]

paper in aerogels will do the same. Just saying.

Re:Landfill?!

[BarbaraHudson]

Rats are a huge problem with landfill operations.

Re:Landfill?!

[spazzmo]

And you can use waste gases to generate power..

how about doing me?

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds better than cremation

Re:how about doing me?

[Anonymous Coward]

tastes better too

Better article

[SoftwareArtist]

Here's a much more detailed article:

http://news.nus.edu.sg/press-r...