Graphene: The perfect water filter
extremetech.com
extremetech.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeSaver_bottle
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pritchard_invents_a_water_f...
From the Wikipedia page: "In 2007, the LifeSaver bottle was tested by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the results found it to completely filter out all bacteria and viruses."
This may be a stupid question, but is that simply nothing remarkable?
Since graphene seems to be the best thing discovered for filtering evaporated water, not liquid water, is the LifeSaver not as great a solution as the TED video makes it out to be, for some reason?
My company works w/ a charity in rural India that makes BioSand filters. The filters allow people to clean large amounts of water and then save it in containers for later. 90-95% of the impurities are removed. More info here if curious: http://faucetface.com/pages/1-for-100
I presume such a filter will also remove all bacteria/etc from the water. So basically, you could grab some water from the Thames, stick it through one of those filters, and drink it. It might lack some minerals, but it won't get you sick.
Regarding bacterial contamination concerns that the posters below discussed, they are likely remedied if the filtration occurs in the gaseous phase of water, though some bacteria can climb substrate walls against gravity so it would be an interesting engineering design challenge.
I'm sure there are engineering constraints that I'm not aware of, like the filtering clogging up and so on, of course. Still, it sounds almost magical with such a perfect filter.
If the preliminary findings with the graphene oxide are hold true, you could stick a cap made of the stuff on a watercone evaporating a bunch of zombie blood and end up with ASTM Type I water to keep you hydrated after the zombie apocalypse.
So I'm wondering if zombie blood is known to have these type of compounds. But more importantly, how common is it for typically impotable water to have these type of compounds?
> how common is it for typically impotable water to have these type of compounds?
My gut feeling is, "not very... right now." The "right now" is pretty much the problem with the speculated water wars (though a bunch of the water in the Gulf of Mexico does contain those compounds).
With landfill's "impermeable" barriers becoming permeated and cholesterol medications, caffeine, birth control, and various other drugs remaining in the treated effluent from waste water facilities coupled with humanity's generally reckless disregard for consequences to its actions there's a significantly non-zero chance that fresh, clean potable water will become scarce in multiple developed locations worldwide.
On the other hand, it could very well be that as our understanding of bio-remediation increases and our utilization of passive and active purification techniques and/or technologies increases we'll keep from having that be a problem. Potentially, we'll even stop actively polluting our water supplies with industrial, agricultural and residential wastes to "save a buck."
Anyway, the watercone is great. They've tackled usability issues present in other solar distillation devices and for areas with access to water with high salinity, or biologically contaminated water (though, there is risk of cross-contamination when harvesting your purified water). It's just that solar stills aren't always a replacement for filters.
Some hydrocarbons might also fit the description.
The graphene oxide mentioned in this article tends to exhibit weaker electrical and mechanical properties than graphene oxide but is much easier to synthesize than conventional graphene, and so a future with graphene oxide products is not as far as away as one with real monolayer graphene.
> Now, technically graphene oxide isn’t quite the same thing as graphene, but in a good way: graphene oxide is much easier to make.
edit: here they are in the lab at Manchester using a similar technique: http://youtu.be/ehvksWx3AJQ
No, far less, because the end product is condensed liquid water (not vapor). When* the desalination method is distillation (evaporating + re-condensing), the heat used to evaporate water is released again when the steam is condensed, and can be recovered and reused. E.g. [1]. The real-world figure wikipedia cites is about 90 MJ/m^3, compared to about 2,250 MJ/m^3 for boiling water at STP [2]. The theoretical limit from thermodynamics -- the minimum energy needed to separate salt and water -- is about 3 MJ/m^3 for seawater [3] (or [4-5]).
*(as opposed to methods like reverse osmosis [6], which is forcing water through a filter with atom-sized holes -- no boiling involved)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-stage_flash_distillation
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization#Other_...
[3] http://http://www.sandia.gov/water/docs/MillerSAND2003_0800....
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_change_of_solution
On a more serious note, there certainly are regions on EARTH that could dearly use such a filter before we jump on building spacecrafts.
How useful will the filter be if it gets clogged? Reverse Osmosis needs high pressure and produces much less water than it takes in, then it needs remineralization. Same situation?
Maybe it will be better for filtering steam or air.
Even supposing we work out a way to manufacture graphene cheaply, it seems to me that there are lots of technical solutions to problems out there which remain undeveloped for lack of a viable financial model (or simply bad luck I suppose).