[HN Gopher] Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy 'f...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy 'forever
       chemicals'
        
       Author : ckcheng
       Score  : 29 points
       Date   : 2022-08-18 22:13 UTC (46 minutes ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.science.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
        
       | smm11 wrote:
       | DMSO and soap is expensive? Okay, then.
        
       | culi wrote:
       | Now that Teflon got sued and switched to a different, probably
       | more harmful, chemical I wonder if we'll want to go back to the
       | OG "forever chemicals"
        
         | Teknoman117 wrote:
         | That's honestly one of the things I wish we could get a handle
         | on.
         | 
         | Company gets sued for using and hiding the danger of a compound
         | they learned fairly quickly was toxic. Goes and invents another
         | compound and switches to it without having to prove its safety.
         | After it becoming public that they were intentionally hiding
         | dangers for a half century, I feel we should take away their
         | ability to be given the benefit of the doubt.
         | 
         | All I think they learn from these lawsuits is that they need to
         | get better at identifying and removing people who will call
         | them out on their bullshit.
         | 
         | Edit - I know the whole thing with DuPont was using PFOAs in
         | the manufacturing process and leaking (intentionally dumping)
         | them into the environment, but it's not like the final product
         | (Teflon) is safe to ingest either, which as a cooking surface,
         | you most definitely will in some quantity.
        
           | ars wrote:
           | > but it's not like the final product (Teflon) is safe to
           | ingest either
           | 
           | Sure it is. I don't think a less toxic material than Teflon
           | even exists. It's toxicity is comparable to water.
           | 
           | The LD50 of Teflon is > 11,280 mg/kg. Water by comparison is
           | 90,000 mg/kg. They were not able to measure the exact
           | toxicity because it's impossible to eat so much.
        
         | ars wrote:
         | The new chemical is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX and
         | while I'm not a chemist as best I can tell, it also contains a
         | carboxylic acid group, so this method would work on it.
        
       | sbierwagen wrote:
       | The paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm8868
       | 
       | The "soap and solvent" is sodium hydroxide (lye) and DMSO at 120
       | degC. Those are... fairly... well behaved chemicals, but lye is
       | stout stuff and DMSO attacks nitrile gloves.
       | 
       | You could imagine a remediation process that uses this process
       | but the combo ain't exactly Dawn dish soap. I'd almost prefer
       | pyroprocessing over it.
        
         | chasil wrote:
         | DMSO is _not_ well-behaved. It easily penetrates human skin,
         | and carries solutes with it. Don 't touch!
         | 
         | "DMSO can cause contaminants, toxins, and medicines to be
         | absorbed through the skin, which may cause unexpected effects."
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide
        
       | samwillis wrote:
       | Slightly off topic, I'm keen to dispose of our Teflon frying pan.
       | Does anyone have a good recommendation for an alternative,
       | ideally one that doesn't take too much "maintenance"?
       | 
       | We also have a Teflon milk pan but that is never used at a high
       | tempriture so I'm less concerned about that.
        
         | droopyEyelids wrote:
         | You could get a new pan with 'ceramic' coating. It's just like
         | teflon in basically every way.
        
           | ok_dad wrote:
           | > It's just like teflon in basically every way.
           | 
           | Hopefully not in the bad ways? Is the "ceramic coating"
           | proven to not be harmful?
        
             | ars wrote:
             | What bad ways? Teflon is not harmful. Teflon is not the
             | same as PFAS, and Teflon cookware does not leech any PFAS
             | into food. See my other reply:
             | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32515717
             | 
             | And to answer your question, ceramics sometimes have heavy
             | metals to get bright colors (cadmium mostly). Make sure to
             | buy from a reputable manufacturer.
        
             | itsangaris wrote:
             | Ceramic itself is safe. Ultimately for a coating, the
             | safety depends on what's underneath if/when it wears
             | through.
        
           | Tagbert wrote:
           | I got a couple different "ceramic" coated skillets and they
           | were the stickiest things I've ever used. They went straight
           | to the recycler.
        
             | maccard wrote:
             | They need to be _hot_ to work.
        
         | ars wrote:
         | High temperatures do not bother Teflon, there's no reason to
         | dispose of it because of that.
         | 
         | According to the EPA Teflon frying pans do not leech any PFOA
         | into food, that's not where people are exposed.
         | 
         | I've noticed that for some reason a ton of people think they
         | get exposure to PFOA from cookware, and that's simply not true.
         | PFOA exposure mainly comes from waterproofing coatings,
         | slippery coatings (like the bottom of skis), and firefighting
         | foam.
         | 
         | Paper dishes (plates, straws, etc) are a big source of exposure
         | because they need to make them waterproof. Make sure to ask for
         | plastic.
        
           | t-3 wrote:
           | Leaching isn't the worry with non-stick coatings, flaking is.
           | Everyone's seen pans flake off teflon into food.
        
         | pomian wrote:
         | Nothing beats cast iron. They aren't hard to take care of.(In
         | spite of the rhetoric.) Actually easier, once you get a good
         | surface on them. Pots, frying pans, woks, etc. They work very
         | well. The most important thing is to give them time to heat up.
         | Once they are, they hold the heat very well, so can cook at any
         | temperature.
        
         | RosanaAnaDana wrote:
         | Cast iron works as a non-stick with a bit of practice.
        
         | swlkr wrote:
         | I switched to stainless steel, it is more to maintain, but it's
         | not horrible. I also use a ceramic pan on very low temperatures
         | to cook really stick stuff like scrambled eggs.
        
         | themagician wrote:
         | Cast iron or enameled cast iron.
         | 
         | Cast iron really doesn't require much maintenance. You can
         | season it and never wash it and be delicate with it like a
         | fancy chef, or you can abuse the hell out of it and it doesn't
         | matter because it's basically indestructible. The only thing
         | you can't do is let it sit in water or run it through the
         | dishwasher. I mean, you can, but it rusts... which also isn't
         | that difficult to clean if it happens.
         | 
         | Cast iron and a green scotchbrite pad or a stainless steel
         | scouring pad and you are good. You can use hot water and soap
         | to clean it. It will deteriorate any "seasoning" but so what.
         | Clean after use, dry and store away. Takes maybe two minutes.
         | If you want to get it seasoned so it has some non-stick to it
         | you can, but you don't have to.
        
         | Tobani wrote:
         | I love my carbon steel pan.
        
       | ckcheng wrote:
       | > What's left behind, Trang says, is mostly easily captured
       | fluorine ions, and a mixture of harmless, naturally occurring
       | carbon and oxygen containing byproducts, her team reports today
       | in Science.
       | 
       | > Roughly 40% of PFAS compounds contain carboxylic acid groups,
       | and thus could potentially be degraded by the new approach, Trang
       | says. Though it has yet to be tested in the field, she adds that
       | the most likely strategy would be to use conventional means to
       | filter PFAS chemicals from, say drinking water, and then treat
       | them off-site.
       | 
       | > The method doesn't work on all types of PFAS, however.
       | Compounds used in flame retardants and batteries, for example,
       | contain a sulfonate group instead of a carboxylic acid group and
       | won't break down with this approach.
        
         | daniel-cussen wrote:
         | Batteries contain PFAS? Now I gotta test everything.
        
       | superkuh wrote:
       | I was excited for a moment but PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic
       | acid, a PFAS) doesn't have a carboxyl group so I guess
       | Minnesota's (US state) 3M polluted waters won't get any respite.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-08-18 23:00 UTC)