Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Scientists Discover a Way To Get Every Last Drop of Ketchup Out of the Bottle (bbc.com) 181

Posted by BeauHD from the karate-chop dept.
Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes a report from BBC: Scientists in Boston have found a way to get every last drop of ketchup out of the bottle. They have developed a coating that makes bottle interiors super slippery. The coating can also be used to make it easier to squeeze out the contents of other containers, such as those holding toothpaste, cosmetics and even glue. The researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) believe that their innovation could dramatically reduce waste. In its manufacture, the container must first be coated on the inside with a rough surface. A very thin layer is then placed over this. And, finally, a liquid is added that fills in any troughs to form a very slippery surface -- like an oily floor. The ketchup hovers on top and just glides out of the bottle. According to Prof Kripa Varanasi, who developed the slippery surface, the technology is completely safe. "The cool thing about it is that because the coating is a composite of solid and liquid, it can be tailored to the product. So for food, we make the coating out of food-based materials and so you can actually eat it."

schwit1 adds: "Pretty slick."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Discover a Way To Get Every Last Drop of Ketchup Out of the Bottle More

Scientists Discover a Way To Get Every Last Drop of Ketchup Out of the Bottle

Comments Filter:

  • Real Science! (Score:4, Funny)

    by aglider ( 2435074 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @05:07AM (#53916139) Homepage
    It's really nice to see all this Science and Technology used to get a better world!
    And a /. article for it!

  • Just wait (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23, 2017 @05:08AM (#53916141)

    I bet it gives you cancer.

    • Basically every new chemical substance is blamed for increasing cancer risk a few months after it's released out to the public.

      Sometimes it's true, but it's usually a class action law firm looking for a big pay day. Sad, really.

    • Only if you live in California.

  • Old news (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This news goes back to at least 2012. See http://www.geek.com/geek-pick/mit-creates-superhydrophobic-coating-for-condiment-bottles-1491587/

    • Yes, indeed (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      See this article [tikalon.com] from July, 2016, about such research at Ohio State University.

    • See also this slashdot article from 2015 about the exact same technology:
      https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]

      Apparently the reason it's in the news is that LiquiGlide (a company Prof. Varanasi co-founded, though it's not mentioned in the newer article) just went through (or is in the middle of?) a new round of venture funding [techcrunch.com].

      So they had working technology for sale two years ago but now they want it to be news again, because marketing.

  • How is this different... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23, 2017 @05:28AM (#53916187)

    ...from the news from five years ago?

    http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/nano-coating-ketchup-bottle-23-05-2012

  • Interesting, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loranger ( 2707781 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @05:30AM (#53916191)
    ...that will never work. That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each. I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

    • You're absolutely right. This is something that is 100% in the consumer's interest, which means it'll only happen if the manufacturer is legally obligated to use it.

      • Actually its not. The most savings could come in the manufacturing side that uses huge vats of ingredients. Those vats need to be cleaned and the losses are much larger than on the consumer end.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by green1 ( 322787 )

          As a percentage, the losses on those large vats are tiny compared to the customer end. It also seems unlikely that this coating would survive a proper cleaning, and re-applying it for each batch would likely cost far more than the product loss in the cleaning process.

          • You would be wrong. Its on the manufacturing side real savings will occur. Understand they talk about ketchup because it does just this, gets people talking about their product. Ketchup doesn't matter in their plan other than to help secure funding. There are processes that may or may not be food related where 10+% of product is lost due to the viscosity of the product. In fact the purpose of this money raising is to invest in their CleanTanX product line.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      There may be psychological effects here.
      It is definitely unsatisfying when there is something in the bottle you cannot access.

      In fact there is no doubt people want to be able to squeeze every last drop of bottles. The real question is : how much are they ready to pay for it? The answer to this question will tell if manufacturers are interested or not.

      • Psychological effects? I don't think we should be caving into the neuroses of people suffering from OCD. That won't make the world a better place.

      • Just put a couple drops of water in.. You can put JUST enough water in to make it come out without making it way too watery..

        (As opposed to shampoo, which I think you could water down about 10x and it would still work just as well, from how long the last little bit ends up lasting after adding a bunch of water to it..)

    • Well, transfer the ketchup from the regular container to this new slippery surfaced bottle. Wait..

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by j-beda ( 85386 )

        Well, transfer the ketchup from the regular container to this new slippery surfaced bottle. Wait..

        Good idea. Where can I buy one?

    • than the old ones it'd work just fine. A huge part of supermarket sales is perceived value vs actual value. e.g. people paying an extra $0.50 cents for $0.10 cents worth of ketchup but thinking they just got a bargain.

    • ...that will never work.

      Depends. That could work if manufacturers are pressured to take more into account the environment.

    • ...that will never work. That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each. I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

      Of course it can work.

      It's called collusion, and the entire manufacturing industry will likely squeeze at least a 100% profit out of the additional cost.

      They said it would be better at reducing waste. No one promised cheaper.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khr ( 708262 )

      ...that will never work. ... and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each.
      I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

      Manufacturers can easily work around that. They'll just sell smaller bottles.

      The 64oz bottle will now be the 62oz bottle and the 32oz bottle will become the 30oz bottle. They can make the label a little larger and it'll barely be noticeable, while people get the thrill out of getting every last ounce of ketchup.

      • Don't do much shopping do you? lol the bottles,packages have been getting smaller and smaller by the year instead of raising the price they make a few oz smaller package for more profits because now you need to buy 2 to get as much as the 1 package.cereal boxes are smaller,pasta boxes are smaller,spaghetti sauce bottles are smaller all by a few oz. ect ect.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khr ( 708262 )

          I've been noticing that, especially with orange juice. The half gallon is now slightly less... I lived overseas for a decade while I think it was starting to happen, so it was sort of a shock to me when I returned to the U.S. to find that.

          That's why I brought it up as the solution to the OP's idea that it wouldn't work if people can now get the full amount out. The manufacturer's will just reduce the full amount and keep the price the same.

    • You're doing it wrong then.

      Heinz could sell a quality empty bottle with the slippery surface, and then sell refills for it like they do for restaurants... A big plastic bag of Ketchup. They get to profit from the sales of the bottles, plus they save on the refillable packaging. The consumer thinks they are getting a good deal, but really, there might be some wasted food from the refill bag.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Eloking ( 877834 )

      ...that will never work.

      That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each.

      I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

      For the cost to manufacture, I totally agree. And it's the hearth of the problem.How much it cost per ketchup plastic bottle? I've read about ~2 cents with a quick google search.

      About the efficiency, not so much. What is lost really? less than 0.1%? It doesn't weight much.

      And on the other hand, you have the great marketing value of these bottle.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Trogre ( 513942 )

      Does it have to be limited to ketchup bottles though? If this can be applied as a general food-grade super lubricant, then what about coating the nozzles in chicken soup machines with this stuff so they don't clog so easily?

  • How many times will this story get repeated? (Score:5, Informative)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @05:38AM (#53916205)
    It has been doing the rounds since at least 2012. It was news back then. It's not news now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arth1 ( 260657 )

      Yeah. While I don't expect editors here to go back and read the last five years (while that would have been nice to get a better understanding of Slashdot), I would expect them to be able to do a search. Especially for terms that won't give a boatload of false positive hits, like "ketchup".

      It's not a hard job. But apparently too hard.

  • They never tell you the details in the media sources for the masses. Also, there were no references presented in this story to something more definitive. Right out of the bat I was concerned about whether or not this is based on nanotechnology, because we already have super-slick surfaces there. Not sure if I want to eat nanotech.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Right out of the bat I was concerned about whether or not this is based on nanotechnology, because we already have super-slick surfaces there. Not sure if I want to eat nanotech.

      Since even the whitener in toothpaste got redefined as nanotech you already are despite it being nothing like the way Drexler et al used the term.
      Androids are phones, hoverboards are skateboards with batteries and nanotech is powder in sunscreen, toothpaste etc - the future is now but it's not matching the hype.

  • Refillable packaging (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dusthead Jr. ( 937949 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @06:30AM (#53916343)
    Rather than working on ways to continue the level of waste we produce, why not make more products refillable? Toothpaste, lotion, ointments, whatever. Instead of putting them in the same old plastic squeeze tubes put them in serine-like tubes than can be opened, cleaned out and refilled. The was a high end toothpaste called Rembrandt that came in an upright bottle that when you push down on it the paste would dispense from the top. The bottle was hard plastic that was made of two parts. It wasn't refillable but it didn't seem like a stretch to make it so. I can see taking the empty container back to the store to be refilled for less then the full price. Reduce and save money.

    • Re:Refillable packaging (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday February 23, 2017 @08:31AM (#53916757) Homepage Journal

      Rather than working on ways to continue the level of waste we produce, why not make more products refillable?

      Refillable packaging is a liability nightmare, so that is not going to happen. I'd just like to see non-recyclable plastic things outlawed, period. No making anything out of plastic and selling it into a market where it cannot be recycled. Glass was good because sand is an endlessly renewable resource. You can literally just take the glass out into the ocean and dump it. If you avoid toxic additives in the glass (and there are some, and there are alternatives) then there is basically zero environmental impact. The glass, in fact, turns back into sand over time. Recycling glass is a boondoggle — you really don't save any energy vs. making virgin glass. Meanwhile, all plastic bottles leach toxics into their contents.

    • Occasionally, aerosol cans of toothpaste have come on the market. Don't confuse it with shaving creme.
  • Manufacturers make money by selling stuff, repeatedly. The fact that you buy a bottle of ketchup and that you cannot use every last drop of it is your problem, not the manufacturers. In fact, if you could use more of what you bought then you would buy less of it and that means in economic terms that (a) consumer gets more product, (b) manufacturer gets less revenue *and* more costs as they now need to coat the inside of the bottle. It may have its uses, but absolutely not in the FMCG (Faast Moving Consumer

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by green1 ( 322787 )

      I'm honestly not coming up with any use that would make sense.
      Consumer goods, it would be amazing, but as you point out, nobody would ever increase their manufacturing costs to decrease their sales.
      Industrial processes, first of all, large vats, pipelines, etc have far less loss (as a percentage) than small bottles and tubes that consumers use, but beyond that, the odds are it would need to be re-applied after each cleaning, which would more than negate the cost savings of less product waste.

      This is unfortu

  • I first heard about these magic ketchup bottles 5, 6 years ago. Is this really that slow a news day?

  • Is the coating itself safe? We come out with "magic" materials all the time and then predictably find out later on that they have all sorts of horribly toxic side effects. Getting all the ketchup out of the bottle falls pretty low on my list of things I give a shit about.

  • because throwing a tablespoon of catsup (or ketchup) away in an almost empty bottle is such a crime and a waste

    • Re:yes, this is of utmost importance (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @08:43AM (#53916839)

      because throwing a tablespoon of catsup (or ketchup) away in an almost empty bottle is such a crime and a waste

      Some people (like me) whose parents grew up during wartime or similar were brought up to think exactly that. A bit of water in the bottle, shake it up and throw it in when making pasta sauce or similar calms that irrational food wasting guilt by getting the last bit out of a normal bottle.

      I think the article is an example of a journalist saying "how can we use this in the home" when asking about a new scientific advance. Applied uses may end up really being something in minerals processing but it's harder for most to relate to that than kitchen stuff.

      • my mom grew up during the 1930's depression, she still cuses FDR to this very day for ordering farmers to take fruit & vegetables out to the desert and burn it when it could have went to feed the poor, (he did it to keep the prices from dropping too much). and she still keeps leftover food until it starts to turn rancid and sometimes i have to go through her refrigerator and throw out old food, i know how the great depression influenced people, she wont waste a drop of anything, i seen that the insanity

  • Just sayin' (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @07:11AM (#53916427) Journal

    "According to Prof Kripa Varanasi, who developed the slippery surface, the technology is completely safe."
    Generally we don't/shouldn't rely on the creator's word to vouch for the ultimate safely of products, particularly ingested chemicals...

    • There are some assertions they can make. If the core of the process is the roughness of one surface, and the application of a compound on that surface known to be safe, then you can't magically have a toxic product. Certainly they are not going to tell us how the surface was made, and what the compound is, that may be a trade secret, however unless they are using a completely new compound to coat the product that has never been use elsewhere, then they are entitled to claim it's safe until someone proves th

    • Unless they can do a field test a-la soylent and live off the stuff for weeks while developing horse-killing farts, I don't buy it either.

  • Can it be applied to ceramic surfaces?

  • I just cut the bottle open when it's almost empty and get everything out.

  • Put the bottle in the fridge upside down, numbnuts

  • Most people just bother it is worth their time and energy to get the last drop. So they open the next bottle.

    Some do care. They add a few drops of warm water to the nearly empty bottle, shake well and get a thinner ketchup out into a bowl. They shake/squeeze the next bottle on top of this to "hide" the thinner ketchup, and mix it with a fork from the kids.

    Some care even more and they routinely pilfer ketch up packets from every fast food place they enter. They never go through drive through. They go i

  • This "coating" is already outdated, since bottle companies are working on plastics that basically do this without any additional coatings.
    And they're already partly there: if you look at ketchup bottles in (US) stores you can see that the ketchup does all slide to the bottom now.
    The sliding doesn't happen real fast but it works. And nobody wants the whole bottle to come gushing out at once anyway.

  • There are scientists for ketchup??

  • Ketchup becomes thinner when you hit the bottom bottle with the bottom of your hand. Some shampoos and detergents does this too.

  • I remember reading this *exact* story here on /.about five years ago.

  • Yeah, so we add this stuff, and that means you won't waste this other stuff.

    a) I trust the new stuff is cheaper than the ketchup itself -- and by cheaper, I mean cradle-to-grave with the machine, the material, the shipping of the material, and the invention efforts too.

    b) I really don't care about the last half-penny of ketchup in the three-dollar bottle.

    c) water works when cooking with ketchup

    d) time works, and looks cool

    e) this was never anyone's problem!

  • I just mix some vinegar in near the end to loosen it up.

  • According to Prof Kripa Varanasi, who developed the slippery surface, the technology is completely safe.

    Like margarine or pet plastics were perfectly safe in the sixties safe?

  • Ketchup that slides right out of the bottle, to the last drop?

    Shut down the Patent Office. There is now nothing worthwhile left to invent.

  • This is so pointless. I just use my tongue to scoop up the last drops of delicious ketchup from the bottom of the bottle. Yes, women love me.

  • We can't cure cancer, but we can get that last glob of ketchup out of a bottle!

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close