Researchers discover game-changing method to unlock clean water for billions of people: 'Can also be used to distill groundwater'
What if a hunk of hot metal could unlock clean water for billions of people? A team of researchers in Japan has developed a groundbreaking new method — and it's powered by something as abundant as sunlight.
A team led by associate professor Masatoshi Kondo at the Institute of Science Tokyo, has developed a method to use liquid tin to desalinate seawater and recover valuable metals simultaneously, utilizing solar heat as the primary energy source. Unlike traditional desalination, which consumes significant amounts of electricity and generates toxic brine, this method is low-waste, low-energy, and high-reward.
"Unlike conventional methods, large consumption of electricity is not necessary, enabling the development of a sustainable process," said Dr. Kondo.
Over four billion people experience water scarcity each year, and the demand for clean drinking water continues to increase. Traditional desalination can help — but it's costly, energy-hungry, and generates an estimated over five billion cubic feet of brine daily. That's enough to fill around 50,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools, often dumped back into oceans where it harms marine life.
This is where Dr. Kondo and his research team come in. Co-authored by doctoral student Toranosuke Horikawa, then-bachelor student Mahiro Masuda, and assistant professor Minho Oh from Science Tokyo, their study aims not only to find a simple solution to desalination but also to transform the brine from an environmental issue into a resource.
Kondo's team flips the script by using the brine as a resource instead of waste. Here's how it works. Brine is sprayed onto molten tin. The heated tin evaporates the water, leaving behind a mix of useful metals, including magnesium, calcium, and potassium. As the tin cools, it releases these metals for recovery. Meanwhile, the steam condenses into distilled fresh water.
This isn't just a lab curiosity — it's a game-changer for public health, especially in areas hardest hit by drought, contamination, or poor infrastructure. Researchers can also adapt the process to treat polluted groundwater, including arsenic-contaminated sources that pose a threat to millions worldwide. And because it relies on heat — ideally from solar power — it could bring clean water access to off-grid or resource-limited communities.
"The proposed technology … can also be used to distill groundwater polluted with arsenic without consuming large amounts of energy or producing waste," Dr. Kondo added.
Though still in the research phase, this discovery could mark a major leap forward in sustainable water treatment. It tackles two issues at once — clean water access and resource recovery — while keeping environmental impact low. If scaled successfully, it could reduce costs, decrease pollution, and help stabilize ecosystems affected by over-extraction and drought.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Researchers discover game-changing method to unlock clean water for billions of people: 'Can also be used to distill groundwater'
What if a hunk of hot metal could unlock clean water for billions of people? A team of researchers in Japan has developed a groundbreaking new method — and it's powered by something as abundant as sunlight. A team led by associate professor Masatoshi Kondo at the Institute of Science Tokyo, has developed a method to use liquid tin to desalinate seawater and recover valuable metals simultaneously, utilizing solar heat as the primary energy source. Unlike traditional desalination, which consumes significant amounts of electricity and generates toxic brine, this method is low-waste, low-energy, and high-reward. "Unlike conventional methods, large consumption of electricity is not necessary, enabling the development of a sustainable process," said Dr. Kondo. Over four billion people experience water scarcity each year, and the demand for clean drinking water continues to increase. Traditional desalination can help — but it's costly, energy-hungry, and generates an estimated over five billion cubic feet of brine daily. That's enough to fill around 50,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools, often dumped back into oceans where it harms marine life. This is where Dr. Kondo and his research team come in. Co-authored by doctoral student Toranosuke Horikawa, then-bachelor student Mahiro Masuda, and assistant professor Minho Oh from Science Tokyo, their study aims not only to find a simple solution to desalination but also to transform the brine from an environmental issue into a resource. Kondo's team flips the script by using the brine as a resource instead of waste. Here's how it works. Brine is sprayed onto molten tin. The heated tin evaporates the water, leaving behind a mix of useful metals, including magnesium, calcium, and potassium. As the tin cools, it releases these metals for recovery. Meanwhile, the steam condenses into distilled fresh water. This isn't just a lab curiosity — it's a game-changer for public health, especially in areas hardest hit by drought, contamination, or poor infrastructure. Researchers can also adapt the process to treat polluted groundwater, including arsenic-contaminated sources that pose a threat to millions worldwide. And because it relies on heat — ideally from solar power — it could bring clean water access to off-grid or resource-limited communities. "The proposed technology … can also be used to distill groundwater polluted with arsenic without consuming large amounts of energy or producing waste," Dr. Kondo added. Though still in the research phase, this discovery could mark a major leap forward in sustainable water treatment. It tackles two issues at once — clean water access and resource recovery — while keeping environmental impact low. If scaled successfully, it could reduce costs, decrease pollution, and help stabilize ecosystems affected by over-extraction and drought. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Scientific American
a day ago
- Scientific American
A Sodom and Gomorrah Story Shows Scientific Facts Aren't Settled by Public Opinion
In 2021 a multidisciplinary team of researchers claimed that a Tunguska-sized airburst, larger than any such airburst in human history, destroyed a Bronze Age city near the Dead Sea. The story went viral. This alleged destruction of Tall el-Hammam around 1650 BCE, with reports of melted pottery and mudbricks, pointed to the Bible, the team concluded in Scientific Reports, noting 'what could be construed as the destruction of a city by an airburst/impact event.' News outlets from Smithsonian to the Times in Britain covered the report. It had all the ingredients—with authors touting its connection to the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah—to make it pure clickbait gold. On the day it was published, one of the co-authors posted links on his blog to their three press releases. A week later he asserted that it was 'the most read scientific paper on Earth' based on 250,000 article accesses. Science, however, is not a popularity contest, and the 'cosmic outburst' story indeed holds a different lesson than the one first supposed, about how the public should hear incredible claims. In April, just before the study passed the 666,000 mark, Scientific Reports retracted the finding, writing that 'claims that an airburst event destroyed the Middle Bronze Age city of Tall el-Hammam appear to not be sufficiently supported by the data in the Article,' and that 'the Editors no longer have confidence that the conclusions presented are reliable.' Independent scientists (I was one of them) had alerted them to faulty methodology, errors of fact and inappropriate manipulation of digital image data. One study co-author responded to the retraction in an online post with claims that the editor had caved to harassment by skeptics, concluding that the 'court of public opinion is much more powerful than a shadowy hatchetman spamming a corrupt editor's inbox.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Public opinion does influence policy decisions and funding priorities in science. People are interested in new medical cures and new starry discoveries, which helps explain why we have a NASA and an NIH. That's why it is important for the public to be scientifically literate and well informed. But scientific facts are determined by the scientific method, logic and evidence, all presented in peer-reviewed publications that require reproducible results. Scientists don't vote on findings, but they do achieve consensus by convergence on understandings based on multiple studies across many fields. The Sodom airburst paper instead represented the nadir of 'science by press release,' in which sensational but thinly supported claims were pitched directly to the media and the public. Press releases, rife with references to Sodom and biblical implications, appeared to be focused as much on titillation as on science. A meme, in its original definition, is a self-propagating unit of cultural information that is highly fit in the evolutionary sense. Like genes, memes can be engineered. Science by press release can be an effective first step in the creation and laundering of such memes into the public's collective consciousness. The authors of the Sodom airburst paper did this well. Their press releases were quickly picked up and repeated by both online clickbait media and mainstream media. The Sodom airburst meme was so successful that it achieved pop culture status and public acceptance within a year of the paper's publication, in this ' Final Jeopardy! ' question: 'A 2021 study suggested that an asteroid that struck the Jordan Valley c. 1650 B.C, gave rise to the story of this city in Genesis 19.' (Winning answer: 'What is Sodom?') I am under no illusion that this myth will suddenly be rejected by the public just because the paper was retracted. It is a sticky and compelling idea that has been around since it was suggested by astronomer Gerald Hawkins in 1961. I think it is far more likely that it will join the large and growing pantheon of persistent false beliefs, folk facts and urban legends. Contrary to that bastion of error, scientists know that humans use more than 10 percent of their brains, vaccines don't cause autism, 'detox diets' don't cleanse our bodies, toads don't give us warts, and bulls don't hate the color red. Many of those myths are harmless. It won't hurt you to avoid kissing toads, for example. Belief in other scientifically incorrect claims can be extremely dangerous. Avoid vaccinating your children, and you subject them to the risk of serious illness or death. What would it hurt if most people thought that God sent an asteroid to wipe out the people of Sodom, because of their wicked ways? That could go either way. The Old Testament, in Ezekial 16:49-50, says that they were punished because they were 'arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.' Would it be a bad thing if fear of an asteroid makes us better people? But it could also generate opposition to planetary defense programs to plan for and prevent the impact of an asteroid if we discover one on a collision course. If the majority of people think it's God's will and that we've got it coming, then why shouldn't we just accept our fate? Ultimately, science-informed choices are always the best ones, whether they involve personal decisions about vaccination or public policies for climate change mitigation. When faith inspires people to better themselves, I'm all for that, too. It shouldn't take irrational and unscientific fear of fire and brimstone from an asteroid airburst to make us want to be more humble, kind and generous than the people of Sodom supposedly were.
Business Insider
14-06-2025
- Business Insider
Doctors stunned to see strict exercise regimen is as good as medicine for colon cancer
Scientists and doctors love to joke that exercise is a pretty great drug. But can workouts really compete with chemotherapy to prevent a disease like recurrent colon cancer? That's been tough to prove — until now. Results of the first randomized controlled trial of exercise as a treatment for recurrent high-risk cancer were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago on June 1, and they stunned the crowd of doctors gathered there from around the world. The 17-year trial included over 880 patients from around the globe, each recovering from high-risk stage 2 or stage 3 colon cancer after treatment. Half of the participants were given general advice about exercise and how it can improve cancer survival. The other half were given a structured, three-year exercise prescription to follow, with the goal of preventing recurrence or a new cancer diagnoses. In the trial, exercise outperformed what adjuvant (or, secondary) chemotherapy can do to boost a patient's long-term survival, after surgery and primary treatment is over. Adjuvant cancer treatment is the kind designed to kill any extra cancer cells left behind, and prevent cancer from coming back. "Exercise is no longer just an intervention that improves quality of life and fitness. It is a treatment," Chris Booth, the study's lead author and a medical oncologist at Queen's University in Ontario, told the crowd. Brisk walking prevented recurrent colon cancer, plus new breast and prostate cases In the study, patients who followed an exercise regimen reduced their risk of death by 37%, and reduced their risk of cancer recurrence and new cancer development by 28%. The benefits of this three-year exercise prescription — which included advice and support from a trainer or physical therapist — were also long-lasting. After eight years, 90% of patients in the exercise program were alive compared to 83% in the control group. This 7% survival bump is comparable to (and in some cases exceeds) the survival benefits of standard drugs that doctors use in this same context. The common adjuvant chemotherapy drug oxaliplatin gives patients an overall survival boost of 5% after 10 years. Many other adjuvant cancer drugs deliver similar survival benefits, of around 5 to 10%. The effect didn't seem to be due to other factors. Patients didn't lose weight or belly fat, and no meaningful difference was seen in fatal heart attacks. The exercisers also weren't turning into Olympic athletes; they were just doing the equivalent of about 1.5 to 2.25 extra hours of brisk walking each week. In addition to reducing colon cancer diagnoses and deaths, the exercise also seemed to reduce the risk of other cancers. In the exercise group, there were two new cases of breast cancer diagnosed, compared to 12 cases among the controls. Other cancer doctors at the conference were shocked at the magnitude of the effect even though they've always kind of known exercise is good for cancer. Exercise is generally recommended to patients in recovery to improve outcomes. But to beat standard chemotherapy drugs? That was impressive. Dr. Paul Oberstein, a medical oncologist at NYU Langone who was not involved in the study, said he'd like to bring this treatment to his patients, maybe with some help from wearables like watches, and on-demand fitness classes people can access at home. "If you could somehow package this and bill it as a drug, it would be very valuable because the benefit was really remarkable," he said. Scientists are still figuring out why exercise is so great at preventing and treating cancer Researchers are still studying the blood samples of patients who were in this study, drilling down into what might be driving the anti-cancer effects from exercise. Oberstein suspects that exercise is probably doing something that's powerfully anti-inflammatory in the body, reducing tumor growth, and preventing cancer's spread. At least, that's what he observes when he studies mice on treadmills in his lab. "Of course, mice on treadmills are not really people," he said, chuckling. "But what we see, and what we think might be applying, is that they have less inflammation." Other researchers think that perhaps exercise is revving up the immune system, engaging in what's called "immune surveillance" against cancer. "These are very hard things to measure over a long period of time," Oberstein said. Booth, who's been an avid long-distance runner ever since he was a kid, said this treatment should now be offered to any recovering colon cancer patient who wants it. "This intervention is empowering for patients, it is achievable for patients, and with a cost that is far lower than our standard," he said near the end of his talk. Slowly, but surely, the whole crowd stood up and burst into a sustained and hearty standing ovation.
