Smog Busting Paint Breaks Down Noxious Gasses 261
jlechem writes "New Scientist is reporting a story about a new paint that can absorb noxious gas. According to the article the new paint is called Ecopaint. The substance is designed to reduce levels of the nitrogen oxides, collectively known as the NOx gases, which cause respiratory problems and trigger smog production. The paint's base is polysiloxane, a silicon-based polymer. Embedded in it are spherical nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and calcium carbonate 30 nanometres wide. Because the particles are so small, the paint is clear, but pigment can be added. The first paint to go on sale will of course be white."
Just in time! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just in time! (Score:3, Informative)
Your post brings up an interesting questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Your post brings up an interesting questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just in time! (Score:5, Interesting)
now if someone (Score:3, Funny)
Saturated? (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when the paint is saturated? Sure it works to a point, but will additional coats of paint over revitalize production, or are we looking at a long term problem when the paint fails and begins soaking up noxious chemicals that could leak and cause a really nasty effect on the environment? Furthermore, did anyone read this sentence in the article and become slightly shocked? "The acid is then either washed away in rain, or neutralised by the alkaline calcium carbonate particles, producing harmless quantities of carbon dioxide, water and calcium nitrate, which will also wash away."
So it either causes acid rain, or it cleans the environment?
Re:Saturated? (Score:2)
Re:Saturated? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I meant (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Saturated? (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't sound very good.
Re:Saturated? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see this stuff being required by ordnance in cities, especially places like Los Angeles and Beijing, where air pollution is a major issue.
More like worn threadbare (Score:2)
Re:Saturated? (Score:4, Insightful)
Environmental Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
People should realize that all paints and coatings end up in the environment.
I admit this is intriguing science. The most interesting thing about pollution reducing coatings to work, there will need to be a unique formula for each city. I live in a city where the worst pollution days happen in the dead of winter with temperature around 30 degrees farenheit. Other cities get bad during the heat.
It is an interesting science, but not a one size fits all science.
Re:Saturated? (Score:3, Informative)
So it either causes acid rain, or it cleans the environment?
Re:Saturated? (Score:3, Insightful)
I just saw Nemo with the family recently. Doesn't this statement distrub you a little?
Think of the reefs, the fish, the entire ocean ecosystem. Maybe in 50 years it's okay, but by that time, we could have many layers of this embedded in dumps, landfills and the like.
The solution has always been to eliminate emissions altogether with technology such as energy fueled vehicles with zero emisions.
We can't keep placating the environment.
Re:Saturated? (Score:2, Informative)
it doesn't become saturated. it seems it can wear out, however.
the article states:
The particles absorb ultraviolet radiation
in sunlight and use this energy to convert
NOx to nitric acid.
which means that the titanium dioxide particles must do some sort of combining with the NOx. there's a finite number of particles, and so the paint would have a lifetime, estimated in the article to be about 5 years for a "typical 0.3-millimetre layer".
> "
Re:Saturated? (Score:3, Informative)
It combines with the NOx molecules in the start of the reaction (as well as other reactants, e.g. H2O), the NOx molecules then combines with the H2O to form nitric acid. When the reaction completes, the titanium oxide molecule detachs itself from the nitric acid and is ready for the next reaction.
In theory, the oxide shouldn't get consumed in the reaction, it just serves as a reaction site for the reac
The nanoparticles are CATALYSTS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The nanoparticles are CATALYSTS (Score:2)
-B
Re:Saturated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the hell does everyone focus on SUVs as the only vehicles that pollute a lot? How about mini-vans, full size vans, pickup trucks, RVs, semi trucks, delivery trucks, and people who just drive a lot? Don't they pollute as well?
People who hate SUVs hate the typical 'SUV lifestyle' more than they hate pollution itself. Some SUVs are actually more fuel efficient than some cars.
Besides, would these people really want the government deciding what size vehicle they get to drive?
Re:Saturated? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not complaining about delivery trucks and etc is because very few people drive those. They're a smaller problem, relative to the benefits their drivers receive.
Re:Saturated? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Saturated? (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be true on a per vehicle basis, but not likely on a total pollution output. Still, it's missing the point. It's not like the bus drivers and truck drivers can do the same thing with a fuel-efficient car. The size and carrying capacity of those vehicles are required to do the things they are doing, and indeed improvements in fuel efficiency for buses and trucks is desirable even by those who use them. The thing stopping these users from being less polluting is (a) technology is just making such options available now, and (b) more efficiency is expensive (for them). So they may pollute, but there is reasonable justification.
SUV's on the other hand, are entirely unnecessary for most of what they're used for (commuting, groceries, etc.). These things are better done in more fuel-efficient cars, which are actually cheaper. This is the opposite of the bus/truck problem, economics should drive SUV drivers to cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars. It's mainly status symbol, machismo, whatever, that generally keeps them from getting "better" vehicles. The difference with SUVs is that there is no reasonable justification of why they are necessary in most cases. (Yes, sometimes they are necessary and justifiable, but that usually involves living in rural and snowy areas.)
I'm no anti-SUV zealot, but there is clear reasoning why (most) SUVs are bad and unnecessary. Some SUV owners use the "stop telling people how to run their lives" argument, which is basically equivalent to saying "I should be allowed to blow cigarette smoke in your face if I want to, it's a free country". Pollution, health, and effects on environment are everybody's concern.
Re:Saturated? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or *marketing*.
And the reason that SUVs are marketed so much is because federal emissions and safety regulations which apply to cars don't apply to SUVs (they are considered to be "trucks").
People can drive their SUVs all they want (though I sure wish they would drive them with every ounce of care, if not more, than they put into driving smaller cars). But they should be regulated by the government the same as normal cars are, because that's what they nearly
Re:Saturated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Saturated? (Score:2, Informative)
cars: increased safety requirements (full passenger cage), increased CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) restrictions
Trucks: lesser safety requirements (no passenger cage, body is a rigid steel frame with an engine and wheels), decreased CAFE restrictions to be leniant to the numerous companies that use them for work-related activities (which is fine by me)
Re:Saturated? (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone might say that those other vehicles serve a reasonable function most of the time so possibly the polution they cause is somewhat justified while with the SUVs it is not.
That someone might see these facts and use them to justify bashing SUVs, though that someone ... wo
So convenient (Score:3, Insightful)
So now (Score:2, Interesting)
yeah.. great idea. (Score:2, Funny)
"a new paint that can absorb noxious gas"....
Just what I need... my house coated in noxious gas. I'm sure this stuff will give lead paint a run for it's money.
Bathroom (Score:5, Funny)
I know
And allegedly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like when they used steel pipes in houses (which corrode from the inside out) rather than lead?
No thanks. I'll wait for proof before I paint even a bench with that stuff.
Re:And allegedly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, and that crap they threw into gasoline, yup that was safe.
Asbestos was a really nice fire retardent material. Too bad it had a tendency to create dust that causes lung cancer.
And to cap it all off, let's have 3 cheers for air bags and anti-lock brakes. If you are a small-fry like my wife and myself, you too can be killed in a 10mph impact by a piece of safety equipment! Anti-Lock brakes, they actually increase breaking distance and if you pump them (like anyone over the age of 26 was trained to do) you are screwed.
You really start to understand why people in ages past were so resistant to change.
Re:And allegedly... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah. Far better to leave the smog in the air where it belongs.
Re:And allegedly... (Score:5, Informative)
If you are a small-fry like my wife and myself, you too can be killed in a 10mph impact by a piece of safety equipment!
Wear your damn seatbelt. Airbags in
Anti-Lock brakes, they actually increase breaking distance and if you pump them (like anyone over the age of 26 was trained to do) you are screwed.
Antilock brakes allow you to steer your way out of (and possibly avoid) an impending accident. Most people's reflexes are to keep pressing that brake pedal until you stop. Train yourself away from pumping the pedal - ABS can pump that pedal a lot faster than you can. They are also multi-channel, and can yield considerably more braking effort from each wheel than you, eg two wheels off the edge of the road on dirt. So unless you have four brake pedals in your car, you , by yourself, have very little chance of getting a shorter braking distance than your antilock brakes can. (Yes, special circumstances apply).
I would buy the car with ABS and airbags, because those two technologies would significantly improve my chances of survival in day-to-day driving.
And here ends my little rant for the day
Re:correct on most points (Score:3, Interesting)
On a slightly different subject, when ABS was introduced by the major manufacturers in Australia, they altered their ABS firmware so that the initial skid-after-lockup was a fraction longer, allowing the wheel to 'bite' down through loose gravel onto the road base. Otherwise the system would try and brake your vehicle using the loose gravel, with obvious poor effect. I've encountered this "rolling" effect of braking on lo
Re:And allegedly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-lock breaks increase stopping distance over properly-executed threshold breaking, but I think it's terribly naive to claim that the general population is good at threshold breaking. Anti-lock breaks are a lot better for stopping than non-anti-lock breaks, if you lock your wheels. It's that whole static- versus dynamic-friction thingy.
And as for airbags and seatbelts causing injuries in crashes, it's true. They can. But guess what: it's statistically impossible for auto-makers to install saftey features that protect every possible driver from every possible impact. (well, the one saftey feature that would work is the "car-with-no-engine" feature. It never gets into accidents). So clearly, if airbags and seatbelts save more lives than they cost, they are worth having. And if you're so small that your airbag is always a danger to you, you can have it disabled (I have a friend, who is a dwarf, and her airbag is disabled, with a key, so that if a normal-sized person drives her car, it can be turned back on).
Just because a potential technology has a downside doesn't mean it's worthless and we should shun it. Nothing is free; just do the cost-benefit analysis and pick whichever has the best ratio.
Re:And allegedly... (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't be too sure about that. One of my friends got into an accident with a parked car on the other side of the street once. (Yes, I'm serious.)
Re:And allegedly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of the anti-ABS whacko's shut up when Car and Driver had some of the worlds top racecar drivers do a shootout with a vehicle which had ABS factor, they had one of their editors do a 0-60-0 run with ABS, then had 5 drivers try to beat his distance with the ABS disabled, only Michael Schumaker was able to do it, if only one of five pro drivers can beat ABS what does that tell you about mere mortals?
As to the OP, TiO2 is ALREADY in almost all paint. Most paints sold anymore are latex polymer (much better than oil based paints with volatile organics if you are worried about cancer) and calcium carbonate isn't going to cause anything cancer.
Re:And allegedly... (Score:3, Insightful)
A catalytic converter on the city, not the car! (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple foreseen problems with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Smog (Score:2, Insightful)
---
http://spaceruckus.web1000.com [web1000.com]
These guys are putting together a free 3D action/adventure game.
Re:Smog (Score:2)
Could this be used on pollution sources? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would seem like a more logical place to apply this paint, though applying it to roads and other surfaces probably doesn't hurt, either.
Re:Could this be used on pollution sources? (Score:2, Insightful)
Worthwhile statistic (Score:5, Interesting)
None of the usual "20% decrease in XYZ, 30% lower levels of ABC", plain and simple "it makes a difference noticeable to people".
Interesting technology, but the "paint will begin to discolor after approximately 5 years" may discourage widespread deployment.
What about noxious gasses in production? (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to recall TO2 being a fairly nasty chemical to produce, using lots of Chlorine in production, etc. (Of course, high-school chem was a while back...) Is using the paint a net benefit to the environment? If not, what's the point?
Re:What about noxious gasses in production? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wikipedia reference [wikipedia.org]
Its the normal pigment in white paint.
The binder for most emulsion paint is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which is where I guess you got the connection with chlorine.
(vinyl paint) This is certainly not without risks.
Health risks with vinyl chloride monomer [chemicalin...chives.org]
and here [epa.gov]
The only novel hazard here is the formulation of Titanium dioxide as nanoparticles, and the potential health risks associated with such stable nano particles.
Given that these are long term bound into the paint binder, this is possibly one of the lower risk applications of nano particles, though TiO2 is worryingly stable.
Shoka
Reduce fart smell! (Score:2)
For those that can't be bothered to read it thru (Score:5, Informative)
In goes noxious gas (pun intended) and out comes a weak acid. Put a ring of limestone gravel or pavers around the base of the building and even that would be neutralized.
Of course the bigger question is if this paint and other materials like it are cheaper then catching the gasses closer at their sources, or at least ensuring those sources aren't so close to folk's lungs and other living creatures not appreciative of such.
Translation (Score:2)
In other words, "It looks white".
Paint that *causes* corrosion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Paint that *causes* corrosion? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with some of the other posts before me though: is the benefit of reduced nitrous oxide in the air outweighed by the other possible environmental dangers? I hope this goes through a lot of testing by independent groups before it hits the market.
Re:Paint that *causes* corrosion? (Score:5, Insightful)
They mix in calcium carbonate to neutralize the acid. But the article says that the calcium carbonate runs out in about five years, and then the acid discolors the paint (and presumably corrodes whatever is under it).
The calcium nitrate will eventually run off into the nearest body of water, and excess nitrates in water cause algal blooms and can kill off fish. However, I doubt if the amount of nitrates from this source will be significant compared to the large amount of fertilizer runoff.
Nitric acid from smog (Score:4, Interesting)
It is worth noting that the NOx from smog already forms nitric acid, which sticks to surfaces. Nitric acid is very "sticky" in this regard, and when it rains or the humidity gets very high, it corrodes the surfaces on which it has been deposited. This occurs even without the catalyst. In effect, the new paint won't be a big change- nitric acid will continue to be deposited, but at a higher rate- and preferentially on surfaces with the catalyst, which has a modest amount of calcium carbonate to neutralize the product.
On the bright side, if calcium carbonate is used for neutralization, the calcium nitrate is actually fertilizer. Yum for the plants.
Re:Nitric acid from smog (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't get saturated (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article you'll see a nice and practically useless image where it shows that NOx is broken down to harmless stuff like water and oxygen. Don't ask me HOW exactly. Anyways, once the calcium carbonate runs out, the nitric acid will not be nuetralized. ( good read up on a chem textbook regarding bases ( like calcium carbonate ) and acids, especially how they affect eachother ) Having a whole load of acid building up inside your paint isnt a good thing but according to the article it will just discolour the paint. While the Titanium Oxide will happily continue to absorb more NOx and thus create more acid.
So basically, nowadays you have to paint once every 5 years because the smog attacks the paint. Now you have to paint once every 5 years because the paint attacks the smog.
Didn't you study chemistry? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It doesn't get saturated (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't get saturated (Score:2)
CaCO3 is not a base (Score:3, Informative)
Just for the record, calcium carbonate (yes, it's the same stuff Tums is made of) is actually a buffer, not a base. Go grab yourself a litmus strip and several Tums. Crush the Tums up and dissolve them in a cup of water. Play with the litmus enough to convince yourself that your solution has a pH of 7.
But, yes, it does neutralize acids. Bases, too.
Re:CaCO3 is not a base (Score:3, Informative)
A buffer _is_ a weak acid or base...A buffer is an acid or base with an equilibrium point that leaves most of the molecules whole, instead of with H+/OH- ions floating about.
Too bad I don't see much paint downtown (Score:5, Interesting)
All your base coats are now belong to us. (Score:2)
Helps with pollution from plants, trees, etc? (Score:2)
Oak trees, for example, give off isoprene, which combined with water and sunlight create formaldehyde. [dailyvidette.org]
Trees have been blamed for up to 65 percent of ozone-forming chemicals in cities such as Houston.
Re:Helps with pollution from plants, trees, etc? (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, I even provided you a couple of links to check out to verify the claim.
Don't be so lazy. The information is out there.
And you should learn to separate politics from science. The two don't mix.
Re:Helps with pollution from plants, trees, etc? (Score:2)
That's nothing. I've got monkeys flying out of all my conjunctions. I believe they're heralding the release of DNF.
Stinky (Score:3, Funny)
I think I need some of this in my shorts.
Must stop consuming so much curry and beer.
Smog absorbing Potpourie (Score:2)
Now, if we have a chemical reaction that eat's smog, why not just spray-paint it onto gravel (to get tons of surface area) with a permeable case. That way you just change-out the 'potpourie' every couple of years without bothering to re-paint.
If you want to REALLY filter the ai
Way Cool stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
embodied energy/pollution (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it actually a greater problem releasing toxins and burning energy to produce this paint than it is capable of absorbing.... I'd bet $$ yes.
Racist. (Score:2)
Just like in everything else:
White before right!
A bit like asbestos perhaps??? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Ah yeah, these skyscrapers last for about 5 years and then they melt...dunno why though..."
But seriously...
I'm wondering whether or not after 5 or 10 years you would get scenes similar to asbestos-removal hype:
People in protective suits very carefully remove the (toxic) paint from the ou
Paint working areas in coal power plants with it (Score:4, Interesting)
White, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Racist manufacturers. :)
My favourite part of the article (with a different substance):
In 2002, after 7000 square metres of road surface in Milan, Italy, were covered with a catalytic cement, residents reported that it was noticeably easier to breathe - with the concentration of nitrogen oxides at street level cut by up to 60 per cent.
60% percent less nitrogen oxides in less than a year? Hell, coat my lungs with it. Even if if has to be reapplied every couple of years, it would be worth it to apply the cement version to streets, and roads and the paint version to buildings. Dunno about the whole discolouration thing, though.
Wonder how long it'll be now that we have photocatalytic paint before someone comes up with photovoltaic paint that can produce significant power? Even cooler if they could be combined.
NOx gasses don't cause smog (Score:4, Interesting)
Colors? (Score:2)
Bet its marketed for 'Smokers Rooms' (Score:2)
"Now with the advent of fume busting paint...."
Could these be a source of air pollution? (Score:2)
Couldn't these spherical nanoparticles do serious damage if it settled in our lungs? I've heard that our lungs can't remove particles smaller than 30 micrometers wide.
Re:Could these be a source of air pollution? (Score:3, Informative)
titanium dioxide [healthy-co...ations.com]
Calcium carbonate, even in large quantities in dust form is not considered more hazardous:
calcium carbonate [jtbaker.com]
-Tupshin
What happens when it burns? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What happens when it burns? (Score:5, Informative)
It's interesting to note that an experimental technology involving the use of very fine titanium dioxide powder has been selected to purify water. The water is recirculated in a fountain so that it is exposed to lots of light- ultraviolet catalyzes the decomposition of select contaminants in the presence of the otherwise inert titanium dioxide, producing non-toxic byproducts. It's CHEAP, safe, and effective- but nobody wants to do it, since the technology is still in the experimental phase. Company XYZ isn't willing to pay $millions to try it when there are proven (if more expensive) techniques for doing essentially the same thing.
And I'm a firefighter, too. And a chemist. Too many hats to wear these days.
I hear Darl McBride uses this paint (Score:5, Funny)
I heard that Darl McBride got the first stocks of this to paint on the wall facing his desk.
Paint everything (Score:2)
Isn't all paint white for a while? (Score:4, Interesting)
So I highly doubt the only-in-white limitation on this will hold for very long...
Well, there we have it! (Score:3, Funny)
Voila! I can see Detroit getting behind this paint bigtime.
Use a two-layer application! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Use a two-layer application! (Score:2)
What about the gorillas? Well come winter they'll freeze (or something like that.)
Great solution (no pun intended) just the same.
Re:Ok, so the paint absorbs airborne toxins (Score:2, Informative)
Well, you could start by RTFA. The titanium breaks down the gasses into nitric acid that is converted to harmless carbon dioxide, water and calcium nitrate by carbonate particles. These are then washed away by the rain. When the carbonate particles break down (five years in heavily polluted areas), the paint will keep converting the gas to nitric acid that still washes away.
Sounds like a gre
Re:How do they taste? (Score:3, Funny)
Hi! I'm Troy McClure, you might remember me from such educational films as "Lead Paint: Delicious But Deadly", "Firecrackers: the Silent Killer" and "Man versus Nature: The Road to Victory"
Re:Yo, /. commenters: (Score:2)
paint the tailpipe! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Informative)
The titanium dioxide is a catalyst. It catalyzes a reaction between NO2 and water to produce nitric acid, HNO3. This reacts with calcium carbonate, CaCO3 (basically chalk) in the paint to produce water, carbon dioxide, and calcium nitrate:
CaCO3 + 2HNO3 -> H2O + CO2 + Ca(NO3)2.
The titanium dioxide is not consumed in the reaction, but the chalk is, and when it runs out, your paint fills up with nitric acid, which is not good. However, the reaction that causes the formation of nitric acid happens at a slower rate on its own, it is one source of acid rain.
Calcium nitrate is not noxious; it's basically fertilizer. However, too much nitrate runoff will cause problems with excessive algae growth in water, which can drop the oxygen level low enough to kill fish. Just the same, there's a lot more nitrate runoff from farmers and lawns than you're likely to get from this stuff.
Re:Erm... (Score:2)
I totally suck at chemistry (physics was my thing), how does a catalyst catalyse? And does it get used up?
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can this paint *release* toxic gases? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
-Tupshin