New way to get rid of MTBE

[eridani]

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/4365.html

A researcher has discovered an effective way to remove a troubling new pollutant from our nation's water sources.

Pratim Biswas, The Stifel and Quinette Jens Professor of Environmental Engineering Science and director of the Environmental Engineering Science Program at Washington University in St. Louis, has found a method for removing the toxin MTBE from water. MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) has been detected at low levels in municipal water sources around the nation and in several cases has made its way into citizens' tap water.

Biswas discovered that a nanostructured form of a compound called titanium dioxide causes MTBE to react with dissolved oxygen so that it yields the harmless gas carbon dioxide. This reaction proceeds via oxidation of MTBE on the surface of the titanium dioxide to produce a harmful end product. Biswas then designed nanostructure configurations of this catalyst to optimally degrade the pollutant.

[KT2000]

1. Really hope this works

but nano technology is another can of worms.

[NNadir]

2. I can't think of a single way in which catalysis is a "can of worms."

Catalysis is an important technology. Without it we'd be in far more desperate shape than we already are.

[KT2000]

3. The results are what we want

but I have read where some scientists are coming together to call for a moratorium on nano research until safety is analyzed completely. They contend that there exists a real risk of humans inhaling/ingestsing the tiny particles with unknown results.

The chemical revolution has been conducted with inadequate safety research and there are casualties all over the place, only we call it cancer, autoimmune diseases, mental disorders, developmental problems etc.

Very few chemicals have been tested for immune and neurological problems. The scientists contend that more safety testing for nano technologies be conducted. I agree.

[NNadir]

4. "Very few chemicals have been tested..."

Of course, given that millions of chemicals are synthesized each year, in order to test every compound for immune and neurological problems we would have to completely abandon technology or else devote all resources to the testing of everything.

It is true that many large volume chemicals have not been subject to complete rigorous testing. Vinyl chloride for instance was discovered to be toxic only when millions of tons of it were in production.

However, there are practical rational weighing of alternatives and then there is blanket paranoia. One of the most dangerous "nanoparticles" on the planet is coal soot. It is extremely toxic and it probably has killed tens of millions of people in the last fifty years. (The famous buckminsterfullerene, C60, the target of decades of elegant synthetic research, and perhaps the quintessential "nanoparticle," was actually first discovered not in laboratory flask, but in candle black.) If one really wants to attack nanostructured particles on the grounds that one has read somewhere that they might be dangerous, ordinary soot would be a very, very, very, very good place to start. In fact, I agitate for just such a ban all the time. On the other hand, it may prove, in fact it DOES prove, that nanoscience can greatly REDUCE risk to humanity in particular and the environment in general in many, many cases. If one wished to ban nanoscience on the grounds it is scarey one would necessarily be compelled to ban one of the first products to come to market that used nanoscience and nanostructure in its development: The catalytic converter.

[KT2000]

5. Pressure of commerce

The chemical paradigm is bound to be repeated in the development of nanotechnology and GMOs. There are so many "miracles" that can be achieved with the use of chemicals but we are up to about 100,000 in commercial use today. Adequate testing has been determined to be a nuisance to the commercial gains so marketing of the miracles prevail.
The human body has evolved with the ability to rid itself of a certain amount of toxic chemicals and I would assume the by-products of nanotechnology as well. The problem comes in when commerce decides that the amount of toxic exposures should be determined by the marketplace - not the health of the population.
Ex: I choose not to use chemicals in my yard but am surrounded by neighbors who each use a few applications of organophosphate/carbamate pesticides a year. My state exceeds most in the amount and toxicity of roadside pesticide applications. Neighbors routinely burn such things as plastics and pressure treated wood.
Nanotecnology has been suggested for cleaning up pollution. If it is used on the bay down the street from me, I will be exposed to that too.
I have already been disabled by a textile product I was working on that was shipped in a pesticide container (the shipper wanted to save money).(and no - there was no lawsuit that compensated me) I now enjoy brain damage (short term memory loss, impaired learning ability, reading difficulties) and immune damage for the rest of my shortened life. I am one of many who have been affected like this.

Which is just to say that the miracles in the lab are one thing but the marketing by irresponsible corporations and use by ignorant consumers has very real consequences. As a nation we only want to recognize the miracles of technology and run with it.

Another example of a miracle:
COMMON PESTICIDE CAUSES AGGRESSION & BRAIN DAMAGE
Glufosinate, a pesticide used widely in the U.S. and whose residues have been found in the food and water supply, has been verified to cause brain and hormonal damage. Japanese government studies have confirmed previous research that glufosinate sets off violent behavior in lab animals. Male rats exposed to the chemical aggressively attack each other, while female rats remain peaceful. But female offspring of rats previously exposed to the pesticide "became aggressive and started to bite each other, in some cases until one died." said Yoichiro Kuroda, principle investigator of the study, adding, "That report sent a chill through me." Glufosinate, which is used as an herbicide on several varieties of genetically modified canola and corn, is also linked to neurological defects that increase the rate of hyperactivity and decrease IQs. Learn more...http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/bayer120904.cfm