Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

IamSauerKraut t1_ixut8hv wrote

Reads like an ad for a company that does not really inform the reader as to much of anything other than "Hey, I knew nothing but now I have a company."

38

[deleted] t1_ixuujhn wrote

3M told DuPont way back in 1991 that PFAS was dangerous.

You’ll excuse me if I’m skeptical that a university professor beat 2 of the worlds largest chemical companies to the answer for the mess they made.

21

Trauma_Hawks t1_ixv06k2 wrote

Hey, shit happens. A chemical engineer discovered kevlar while trying to make a better tire for DuPont. Sometimes the greatest advances are just a big oopsie.

21

PGids t1_ixwny0i wrote

Teflon/PTFE was also an accidental discovery by a DuPont man; ironically it’s also one of the mostly widely used PFAS chemicals ever lol

2

Dire88 t1_ixvoeay wrote

You assume it was cost-effective enough for DuPont or 3M to bother.

13

Prestigious_Clue145 t1_ixv7kt5 wrote

Perhaps they have a solution but simply will not release it

1

glasswings t1_ixw9kdm wrote

If those guys have a solution it probably smells like cancer and tastes like bubblegum. You don't want to know what's in it.

3

WalkerBRiley t1_iy2eah1 wrote

It took a college professor decades of research and dozens upon dozens of court cases to get lead out of gasoline and paint.

I'm not surprised in the least.

1

bubalusarnee t1_ixun614 wrote

neutralize sounds good, but then.... PFAS used to sound good.

7

bogberry_pi t1_ixvm7hw wrote

We already have the technology to remove PFAS. Another method is good, but I will remain skeptical until they can demonstrate at full scale. This sounds a lot like the articles that say there is a new cure for a disease, and we never see it come to fruition.

From the EPA: "It is currently known that three treatment processes can be effective for PFAS removal: granular activated carbon, ion exchange resins, and high-pressure membrane systems. The optimal choice between these technologies is a balance between many factors."

5

B0bs0nDugnuttEsq t1_ixvxzne wrote

This. We already have proven techniques to remove PFAS from water. The issue preventing large-scale deployment of these technologies is the flow rate and scalability. When you're looking at treating widespread groundwater contamination or an entire municipal source, these technologies can't meet the need in any cost-effective way. They'd need to be operating continuously for multiple years to even come close to full remediation, which would come with a price tag in the neighborhood of multiple billions at least.

1

Tankbean t1_ixwi5tp wrote

Large scale removal is just starting. It's expensive and not efficient. These chemicals will be with us indefinitely. Same with plastics. Don't worry too much though. Shorter life spans aren't a huge deal when climate change, ocean acidification and insect collapse will crash our population. Humanity and capitalism are great.

5

wittgensteins-boat t1_ixx8hpk wrote

Huge news.

Cost of pumping water to start extracting PFAS from gigantic groundwater reservoirs, and other locations is huge.

1

Dbgb4 t1_ixymxzn wrote

Getting something done in a lab, and performing the same on an industrial scale are two very different processes.

1

WalkerBRiley t1_iy2efs0 wrote

You're right. So we should just stop right now and not investigate any further. Don't bother trying to find a valid way of scaling it up, random reddit user says it can't be done so let's just forget the whole thing.

0

TarantinoFan23 t1_ixuu1p6 wrote

10s of gallons per minute is an not a good return on investment. By my calculations, the government will give this company $1 billion dollars in grants for a bathtub of "clean" water.

−4