Ponca City, We Love You writes "Researchers at Monash University, in Australia, have found a process to coat natural fibers such as wool, silk, and hemp that will automatically remove food, grime, and even red-wine stains by coating their fibers with titanium dioxide nanocrystals, which break down food and dirt in sunlight. Titanium dioxide is a strong photocatalyst and in the presence of ultraviolet light and water vapor, it forms hydroxyl radicals, which oxidize, or decompose, organic matter. "These nanocrystals cannot decompose wool and are harmless to skin," says organic chemist and nanomaterials researcher Walid Daoud. Titanium dioxide can also destroy pathogens such as bacteria in the presence of sunlight by breaking down the cell walls of the microorganisms making self-cleaning fabrics especially useful in hospitals and other medical settings."
"...natural fibers such as wool, silk, and hemp..." So what if I'm sitting real close to someone who is wearing spandex or nylon or some other artificial fabric? Does it eat through those?
"...natural fibers such as wool, silk, and hemp..." So what if I'm sitting real close to someone who is wearing spandex or nylon or some other artificial fabric? Does it eat through those?
Interesting ramifications if you went to the beach [wikipedia.org] to get some sun [wikipedia.org] in the presence of a woman [wikipedia.org] wearing a bathing suit [wikipedia.org].
I think we may need to get a grant to see if this chemical can cause the spontaneous decay of women's swim wear in public.:-P The practical applications of that technology would be staggering.
But what is wrong with this picture [wikimedia.org] (from one of the Wikipedia links above)? Is she some sort or slave woman whose chains were photoshopped from her legs but not all of her shadow? WTF?
Obviously this would be the perfect clothing for many slashbots. However its requirement of sunlight to activate the self-cleaning enzymes makes it impractical for those basement dwellers among you.
Can they modify the fabric to react to the glow of a CRT?
Yes, but it reacts to the UV light...so all you have to do is replace your normal closet bulb with a bright UV lamp and then hang your clothes up for the night with the light on!
You mean you have the energy left to take your clothes off and hang them in the server-room closet before you slump over your keyboard for the night? You obviously aren't getting in enough WoW.
Well if you're playing WoW naked then it isn't a problem, is it? I mean....not that, you know...I do, or anything....it was just a suggestion...if you're into that..... *runs*
The article states that the Titanium Dioxide used is the same compound used in sun screen and cosmetics, so it's probably not going to dissolve anyone's wife anytime soon ^.^
That's what *they* want you to believe. In truth, anyone who's worn sunscreen for any length of time has likely been gradually replaced atom-by-atom without ever noticing, until there's nothing of the original human being left. Sure, they look like hot bikini babes, but they're actually aliens from the planet Ambre Solaire.
That was my first thought, too. Sunlight is only allowed in recovery rooms at any of the hospitals I've been in, and MAYBE some lobbies.
Still, fluorescent tubes not only cause me to have seizures, but they also produce huge amounts of ultraviolet light. Will they still work? (No, the humor is not lost on me that the lighting in hospitals causes me to have seizures... )
Part of dying is to break down or "open up" the proteins or whatever in the fibres so that they can take up the dyes. If you don't do this the dye just washes off. This same process will also break down some other materials, including many stains, allowing them to be washed away.
Protein based fibres (wool, feathers, silk etc) require different treatment than plant based fibres(cotton, hemp etc) because there's a need to "open up" different types of cells.
For protein based dying (in a home/craft situation) i
1) Does this process bleach the fabric? (i.e. Does this work for colors other than white?) 2) What does this do to the longevity of the fibers in the fabric? Does constant exposure to hydroxyl ions damage the cellulose in them?
1) Ideally no. If the coating is thick enough, light should not be able to get through and start the degradation of the fabric/dyes. This assumes that all fibers are similarly (and thus perfectly) coated. I could see cheaper coating processes leading to quicker bleaching.
2) This is similar to your first question. Only light + catalyst = degradation, so as long as the coating is uniform and thick enough to keep light from penetrating too far, it should be safe.
If the coating is thick enough, light should not be able to get through and start the degradation of the fabric/dyes.
Um, if the light can't get through, how can the dye reflect any light? And if the dye is on the surface of the nanocrystal coating, how is this going to stop the dye from being exposed to hydroxyl ions?
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday February 25 2008, @12:32PM (#22547648)
I guess the old "Spill something on her dress and act concerned by patting her chest with a napkin" plan just flew out the window. Now I gotta use other plans to act innocent while copping a feel.
I guess I could try the "Make a sudden stop at a light right before it turns red and stick my arm out to make sure she doesn't fly forward" plan.
Cotton is basically cellulose, which is chemically highly inert (it's a strong structure, and it arranges itself with all the chemically interesting bits on the inside of a spiral, so the attacking chemicals have trouble getting to them). Hydroxyl radicals aren't going to be enough to attack it agressively (though they might very slowly). This will be chemically similar to (not the same as) peroxide based bleaches, which are relatively mild (especially compared to chlorine bleach).
Feb. '08 - Researchers Develop Self-Cleaning Clothes June '09 - Startup "Washtec" Sells First Self-Cleaning Clothes Oct. '09 - Old Navy, Nike, UnderArmour License Self-Cleaning Fabric Technology Nov. '12 - Self-Cleaning Apparel Set to Overtake Ordinary Clothing Sales this Holiday July '13 - Self-Cleaning Clothes Linked to Cancer, Impotence, Schizophrenia Aug. '13 - Self-Cleaning Clothes Health Study Flawed Nov. '13 - Self-Cleaning Clothes: The Killer in your Closet Nov. '13 - SCCs do Pose Some Risk, Scientists Say Dec. '13 - SCC Risks Exaggerated, Study Finds Feb. '14 - Old Navy pulls SCCs from Shelves June '14 - Newer, Safer, SCC Technology Developed
If the clothing made from this fabric was smart enough, it would eventually figure out that the best way to get rid of the 'dirt' problem is to eliminate the one, who is wearing the clothing in question. While the researchers say that these nanocrystals cannot harm the skin, how long before it gains this ability, by say becoming exposed to some levels of X-Rays higher than normal? It wouldn't make long before a movie about the hungry killer suit is released. Also judging from the kind of garbage that get the Oscar nowadays [oscar.com], this new movie is going to get fasttracked in that department as well.
Great movie, though not as good as the Lavender Hill Mob. What's particularly interesting is that the this fictional fabric had exactly the same issues (durability, colors other than white) that are being raised with respect to this new fabric! Since this is Slashdot, it's worth mentioning that the star of these movies was Obi-Wan himself, Alec Guinness. Oddly enough, Sir Alec hated them, not so much on artistic grounds but because he felt that Ealing Studios treated its actors poorly. He was particularly pi
There was a great movie about this subject made in the 50's called "The Man in the White Suit", with Alec Guinness. In the movie, a scientist invents a fabric that repels dirt and doesn't wear out. After initially being heralded as a hero, all the vested interests (pun unintended) in the world's textile and clothing industries think it will mean the end for them, and they want him dead. The movie might take on renewed relevance...
It was done in 1951 [imdb.com].
What's that you say, it was only a story? Perhaps it was and perhaps it predicted the outcome (not good for the inventor).
"Titanium dioxide is a strong photocatalyst" meaning it's not used up in the process. It breaks water into an -OH and an H, which in turn clean your clothing. Basically, it'll produce bleach vapor from water vapor when sunlight is hitting it.
Not only that, but your skin is crawling with "good" bacteria and how does it know the difference between the "bad" bacteria to break down and the "good" bacteria on your skin?
There's actually a pretty subtle distinction here. "Superbugs" are caused by the overuse or misuse of antibiotic medicines -- chemical agents that selectively kill bacteria and other germs. Less-subtle techniques, like most antiseptics, are much tougher to develop a mechanism for avoiding, so topical antiseptics like soap and bleach stand no real chance of becoming ineffective germ-killers. (They're also not selective, and so doing something like ingesting them is not feasible.) While putting antibiotics into products unnecessarily increases the risk of developing an antibiotic-resistant bacterial strain, this isn't the case for an antiseptic (like what is produced by TiO2).
Any very fine mineral dust you inhale in large quantities -- and 5.0 grams per cubic meter is unbelievably dusty, like blowing a whole pack of chalk to smithereens in your office -- will cause the symptoms described in both the OSHA document and the more problematic document you cite from people who want to scare you into buying their (more expensive) "natural" products.
All particles with sharp edges, i.e. that come from minerals, irritate the delicate tissue lining your lungs if you inhale it. TiO2 is no different in this regard than, say, SiO2 -- plain old sand -- that you might inhale if you were around blasting or power sanding operations all day. (Google "silicosis.")
Furthermore, your lungs are built like lobster traps from the point of view of inhaled superfine particles: it's easy to get in, but very difficult to get out. This is why in the upper region of the respiratory tract, you have mucus that traps inhaled larger particles and cilia that beat constantly to flush them up and out, plus a cough reflex to expel the scum. But you can't have these things in the deep tissue of the lungs, because that surface area is needed for gas exchange.
So if you inhale very fine dust, it just stays in your lungs pretty much forever, jiggling around and rubbing on things, irritating them. Your body may decide to wall it off with scar tissue if it's irritating enough, which is the "fibrosis" mentioned. It's even possible if it's sufficiently irritating, like the very sharp particles of asbestos fibers, that it can stimulate lung cancer. For all we know, the only reason people get lung cancer in the large numbers they do is because, sooner or later, everyone's lungs fill up with irritating particles of all manner and description and the chronic irritation causes tumors. Unfortunately, the only way to eliminate the threat of inhaled fine dust completely is to never breathe without a heavy fine-filtering face mask.
Insofar as these clothes are concerned, the primary question would be: how is this very fine dust going to be generated? I mean, inhaling very fine silica (SiO2) dust is dangerous in exactly the same way, but you don't refuse to go to the beach or rock-climbing because you know the rock and sand has no reason to suddenly pulverize itself and become superfine dangerous dust. So how would fibers coated with TiO2 get pulverized and generate super fine dust? Don't say the motion of wearing the clothes, either, because you need much more force than this. Walking on the sand at the beach doesn't pulverize the sand particles and generated dangerous superfine silica dust, after all.
Sunlight? (Score:5, Funny)
This is some new kind of LED, right?
"...natural fibers such as wool, silk, and hemp..." So what if I'm sitting real close to someone who is wearing spandex or nylon or some other artificial fabric? Does it eat through those?
Re:Sunlight? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sunlight? (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting ramifications if you went to the beach [wikipedia.org] to get some sun [wikipedia.org] in the presence of a woman [wikipedia.org] wearing a bathing suit [wikipedia.org].
I think we may need to get a grant to see if this chemical can cause the spontaneous decay of women's swim wear in public.
Cheers
Parent
Totally off topic (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Totally off topic (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its Achilles heel (Score:5, Funny)
Can they modify the fabric to react to the glow of a CRT?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its Achilles heel (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Its Achilles heel (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
BTW, great summary (Score:3, Funny)
That's some darn good journalism right there. Uh-huh.
Only self-cleans in sunlight? (Score:5, Funny)
Thats great but.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The article states that the Titanium Dioxide used is the same compound used in sun screen and cosmetics, so it's probably not going to dissolve anyone's wife anytime soon ^.^
That's what *they* want you to believe. In truth, anyone who's worn sunscreen for any length of time has likely been gradually replaced atom-by-atom without ever noticing, until there's nothing of the original human being left. Sure, they look like hot bikini babes, but they're actually aliens from the planet Ambre Solaire.
Awesome (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, fluorescent tubes not only cause me to have seizures, but they also produce huge amounts of ultraviolet light. Will they still work? (No, the humor is not lost on me that the lighting in hospitals causes me to have seizures... )
Interesting variety of uses (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really suprising (Score:3, Informative)
Protein based fibres (wool, feathers, silk etc) require different treatment than plant based fibres(cotton, hemp etc) because there's a need to "open up" different types of cells.
For protein based dying (in a home/craft situation) i
Two questions (Score:5, Interesting)
2) What does this do to the longevity of the fibers in the fabric? Does constant exposure to hydroxyl ions damage the cellulose in them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there goes my plans... (Score:5, Funny)
I guess I could try the "Make a sudden stop at a light right before it turns red and stick my arm out to make sure she doesn't fly forward" plan.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Welcome to 2002, Australia! (Score:4, Funny)
Let us pool in money... (Score:2, Funny)
Safe on the body, but inside the body? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Safe on the body, but inside the body? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
self-cleaning and self-destructing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a great way to ensure no one wears last year's fashions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cotton is basically cellulose, which is chemically highly inert (it's a strong structure, and it arranges itself with all the chemically interesting bits on the inside of a spiral, so the attacking chemicals have trouble getting to them). Hydroxyl radicals aren't going to be enough to attack it agressively (though they might very slowly). This will be chemically similar to (not the same as) peroxide based bleaches, which are relatively mild (especially compared to chlorine bleach).
I don't know specifica
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your acne clears up. [expresschemist.co.uk]
Headlines (Score:5, Informative)
June '09 - Startup "Washtec" Sells First Self-Cleaning Clothes
Oct. '09 - Old Navy, Nike, UnderArmour License Self-Cleaning Fabric Technology
Nov. '12 - Self-Cleaning Apparel Set to Overtake Ordinary Clothing Sales this Holiday
July '13 - Self-Cleaning Clothes Linked to Cancer, Impotence, Schizophrenia
Aug. '13 - Self-Cleaning Clothes Health Study Flawed
Nov. '13 - Self-Cleaning Clothes: The Killer in your Closet
Nov. '13 - SCCs do Pose Some Risk, Scientists Say
Dec. '13 - SCC Risks Exaggerated, Study Finds
Feb. '14 - Old Navy pulls SCCs from Shelves
June '14 - Newer, Safer, SCC Technology Developed
Pffft. If the clothing was smart (Score:3, Funny)
The Man in the White Suit (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since this is Slashdot, it's worth mentioning that the star of these movies was Obi-Wan himself, Alec Guinness. Oddly enough, Sir Alec hated them, not so much on artistic grounds but because he felt that Ealing Studios treated its actors poorly. He was particularly pi
Life imitates art (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_White_Suit [wikipedia.org]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044876/ [imdb.com]
Already done (Score:3, Informative)
What's that you say, it was only a story? Perhaps it was and perhaps it predicted the outcome (not good for the inventor).
Re:Life span of garment? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Man, I remember when Lead was safe too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: Wait a cotton pickin minute? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: Wait a cotton pickin minute? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:This might make business SCENTS and CENTS... (Score:5, Informative)
All particles with sharp edges, i.e. that come from minerals, irritate the delicate tissue lining your lungs if you inhale it. TiO2 is no different in this regard than, say, SiO2 -- plain old sand -- that you might inhale if you were around blasting or power sanding operations all day. (Google "silicosis.")
Furthermore, your lungs are built like lobster traps from the point of view of inhaled superfine particles: it's easy to get in, but very difficult to get out. This is why in the upper region of the respiratory tract, you have mucus that traps inhaled larger particles and cilia that beat constantly to flush them up and out, plus a cough reflex to expel the scum. But you can't have these things in the deep tissue of the lungs, because that surface area is needed for gas exchange.
So if you inhale very fine dust, it just stays in your lungs pretty much forever, jiggling around and rubbing on things, irritating them. Your body may decide to wall it off with scar tissue if it's irritating enough, which is the "fibrosis" mentioned. It's even possible if it's sufficiently irritating, like the very sharp particles of asbestos fibers, that it can stimulate lung cancer. For all we know, the only reason people get lung cancer in the large numbers they do is because, sooner or later, everyone's lungs fill up with irritating particles of all manner and description and the chronic irritation causes tumors. Unfortunately, the only way to eliminate the threat of inhaled fine dust completely is to never breathe without a heavy fine-filtering face mask.
Insofar as these clothes are concerned, the primary question would be: how is this very fine dust going to be generated? I mean, inhaling very fine silica (SiO2) dust is dangerous in exactly the same way, but you don't refuse to go to the beach or rock-climbing because you know the rock and sand has no reason to suddenly pulverize itself and become superfine dangerous dust. So how would fibers coated with TiO2 get pulverized and generate super fine dust? Don't say the motion of wearing the clothes, either, because you need much more force than this. Walking on the sand at the beach doesn't pulverize the sand particles and generated dangerous superfine silica dust, after all.
Parent
Re:This must be what Star Trek uniforms are made o (Score:5, Funny)
Parent