Big Problems, Little Solutions

Nanotechnology could ease the world’s water woes.

September 22, 2006
Nanotechnology that can identify contaminants in your water. [CREDIT: WaterCAMPWS, NSF]
Nanotechnology that can identify contaminants in your water. [CREDIT: WaterCAMPWS, NSF]

When EPA advisory committee member Richard Sustich walked into his house on a stormy July morning, he was soaking wet. He had just checked to see how the lake near his home in Lake Zurich, Illinois, was holding up in the deluge.

He dried himself off and brewed a fresh cup of coffee before sitting down to discuss another of the projects he works on. A retired Water Reclamation District employee, Sustich already made a 30-year career out of addressing water issues, but he just can’t seem to stay away. Now he works towards finding ways to clean water using the tiniest technology available: nanotechnology.

Essentially nanoscale science and engineering, nanotechnolgy is driving scientists to look to the submicroscopic world—the molecules of water in a lake and pores in a filter, for example—to understand the properties of these tiny parts and to find ways to apply them to big problems. Nanotechnology is already used in many electronic applications and in biological research, but now scientists are exploring the possibility of using nanotechnology to purify public water supplies.

The availability of clean water may not seem like a problem in most areas of our country. But according to Sustich and other experts, even places with an abundance of drinkable water today may soon run out. Within the next decade, the suburbs of Chicago might find their supply running dry. “Here you are within a 30 minute drive from the Great Lakes, and in the foreseeable future we won’t have clean water,” he says. Some of the reasons for this problem include population growth and an aversion to water reuse. But the solution, he says, could be nanotechnology.

In some areas of the country, people already feel the pressure of limited water supplies. In those places, local water companies either try to find ways to desalinate the water or they consider other sources—like wastewater. The City of Aurora, Colorado, is spending $800 million on a major water reuse project. “Where water is already limited, you have people who are already making capital investments,” says Sustich. Nanotechnology could make water reuse a more feasible alternative, because it could be used to identify and remove contaminants that conventional technology cannot.

When attacking problems like water availability, nanotechnology is an attractive option because it has the potential to alleviate water woes worldwide. According to the World Health Organization, as many as 35 percent of all deaths are due to contaminated drinking water. Sustich says that nanotechnology could lower these death rates.

Dr. Mamadou Diallo, the Director of Molecular Environmental Technology at the California Institute of Technology, agrees. A recipient of an EPA grant for nanotechnology research, Diallo sees nano-water purification methods as the wave of the future. “We envision that nanomaterials will become critical components of industrial and public water purification systems,” he writes in a paper published in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

When it comes to cleaning and filtering water the traditional way, “we’ve gotten as far as we can go on the larger scale,” says Sustich, who currently works at The Center of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water with Systems, or WaterCAMPWS. Water purification methods and chemicals in use today can be miniaturized and used to clean water and prevent illness. In a smaller form, these chemicals could identify impurities and clean water more efficiently.

For example, titanium dioxide, a chemical used in sunscreen, reacts with UV light. On the nanoscale, the chemical could be used to decontaminate bacteria-ridden water. When water comes in contact with titanium dioxide and is exposed to light, the chemical breaks down bacterial cell membranes, killing bacteria like the ubiquitous E. coli.

Another way WaterCAMPWS, which is run through the University of Illinois and funded by the National Science Foundation, hopes to improve water quality with nanotechnology is through better filtration. Over time, filtering leaves a residue on one side of the screen. Although it can be washed, the filter will never reach full efficiency again, explains Sustich. But by thinking on the nanoscale, scientists could study how individual molecules sit on filters and then design filter systems that are less likely get clogged.

Using similar logic, scientists can also look at how the molecules and the surface interact so that when a filter does need to be cleaned, scientists know when and how aggressively to do it.

“The more you delve into it and see the capabilities at the nanoscale of what is already out there, your mind just starts to rush,” says Sustich. “Your mind goes crazy.”

Sustich says that some of the technologies may be implemented within the next five to 10 years. Titanium dioxide technology is being tested and presented to industry right now. The Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is also researching and developing nanotechnology to remove metals from contaminated water. “These novel materials are ready to be commercialized,” PNNL writes on its website.

But this commercialization could also bring unintended consequences. Scientists don’t quite understand how nanotechnology might negatively affect human health, but they do think that inhaled nanoparticles could penetrate deep into the lungs. “It’s not black and white,” says Diallo. “No one wants to drink nanoparticles with their water.”

Some non-profit agencies like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense caution that nanotechnology could hurt the environment and human health. The NRDC’s website states that if there is no government oversight and the public is not involved, “we will be allowing the nanotechnology industry to conduct an uncontrolled experiment on the American people.” In order for NRDC to fully support using nanotechnology to purify water, “there would have to be new research,” says Amy Greer, a spokesperson for the agency.

Physicist Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor to the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, also calls for greater government oversight. Maynard recently wrote a report titled “Nanotechnology: A Research Strategy for Addressing Risk,” which recommends that the government spend $100 million to investigate the risks of nanotechnology over the next two years. That would equate to $40 million more per year than the government is currently spending.

Even if scientists find that nanotechnology can be used to purify water without any negative health affects, implementing the technology may be difficult. The water industry is typically conservative and risk adverse, so convincing its employees that nanotechnology is the next best thing could be difficult, says Sustich. Since most water companies are publicly owned, they aren’t allowed to make a profit. And if something went wrong, the water company could be held responsible for a public health crisis, he says.

Despite the obstacles, Diallo and Sustich stand behind their belief that nanotechnology will ultimately help a growing world that uses water more quickly than the earth can replenish it. “I’m still a positivist, I think that we are at the beginning of finding out where nanotechnology can take us,” says Sustich.

Until the nanotechnologies being developed are put in place, Sustich will continue to work on improving water systems with the EPA, at WaterCAMPWS, and at home. “If it wasn’t fun and it wasn’t going to go anywhere, I have the luxury of saying it’s time to move on to other things like protecting my little lake,” he says.

Suddenly reminded of his local project, Sustich excuses himself. There’s another band of rain clouds on the way, and another round of observation close at hand.

Ed. note: When initially published, the third paragraph incorrectly referred to nanotechnology as “micro-scale science and engineering.” We corrected our mistake on September 22, 2006.

About the Author

Susan Cosier

Always interested in multiple aspects of the environment, Susan decided to try writing about them. She is now pursuing a career investigating science and environmental topics from yet another perspective.



Excellent story! Here are some valuable drinking water filtration resources you can use in the future.

Solid carbon block technology is considered the most effective method for reducing contaminants of health concern. In addition to the removal of cysts, a solid carbon block filter also reduces:
· chemicals; MTBE, TCE
· pesticides;
· herbicides;
· disinfection byproducts;
· heavy metals;
· cysts; Crypto bug
· asbestos
· particulates
· chlorine.
. Arsenic

This is Chris Anderson,
I have been educating consumers & others in the drinking water field for over 10 years.
How do you choose a water filter? What does the filter actually reduce or remove? And finally what does it cost? These answers are found by doing a little research or home work will call it. Doing such will save you a lot of money and provide you with pure “healthy” drinking water. The bottom line is you must get a Data Performance Sheet by the NSF national sanitation foundation to compare filters. These “proof of performance” sheets show exactly what the filter does and for how many gallons. If you can’t get one from the manufacturer or from who ever is trying to sell you one, simply say no thanks!

Please visit my Water Filter Facts site and bookmark it for future use.


The direct link to view products, prices and gather more information is here.


NSF International, The Public Health and Safety Company™, a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization, is the world leader in standards development, product certification, education, and risk-management for public health and safety. For more than 59 years, NSF has been committed to public health, safety, and protection of the environment. While focusing on food, water, indoor air, and the environment, NSF develops national standards, provides learning opportunities through its Center for Public Health Education, and provides third-party conformity assessment services while representing the interests of all stakeholders. The primary stakeholder groups include industry, the regulatory community, and the public at large.

Do your home work! Make a good choice for your drinking water needs. Visit NSF.

The Importance of Certification
In the last decade, interest in home water treatment products has grown tremendously. Unfortunately, it isn’t always easy for consumers to know whether or not a particular product will actually be as safe and effective as the manufacturer claims at reducing various contaminants from your water supply.
NSF has a long history of developing and running independent product testing programs. In fact, we are the leading independent tester of home water treatment products on the market today. With our state-of-the-art laboratories and highly skilled staff, we have the knowledge and expertise to effectively evaluate water treatment products, including:
Adsorption filters (i.e. carbon, charcoal, KDF, ceramic)
Reverse osmosis systems
Water softeners
Distillation systems
Ultraviolet disinfection products.
As an added assurance for consumers, NSF requires that all products meet annual re-certification requirements. Unannounced plant inspections and periodic retesting of all certified products are required of all NSF-listed companies. This unique requirement allows us to ensure that the products we certify continue to meet all stated requirements year after year.

Note: NSF has tested & certified over 4000 different filters. It’s important to understand we have 400 plus manufacturers of water filters alone world wide. Having said this “why” would you purchase a water filter that is NOT tested & certified by NSF. It all comes down to this: Talk is cheap and facts are hard to find in the drinking water filtration industry! NSF is were you will get the facts.

Ultimately it comes down to this: What does the filter do & how much does it cost?

NSF Data performance sheets is were to find “what it does”.
Price: For a $1.00 a week you can have pure healthy drinking water. If you are spending “more” it’s costing you too much.

Ps. Should you have any questions in the drinking water field, please write.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Chris Anderson Independent Distributor of Multipure Drinking Water Systems #223193


Best method truly tested for removing all types of bacteria including e-coli from water is by using suficient doseage of Ultraviolet UV. Most effective, without use of chlorine. Mater of fact UV will even distroy chloromines. Please visit us at http://www.aquaazul.com

Sharon Miller says:

Gee, I wonder if they’ll be able to use nanotechnology to remove harmful chemicals from our body or if it will put more in?

An excellent article that accurately portrays my discussions with the writer and the issues.

For those readers interested in the Lake of Lake Zurich pollution problem, pollution from the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Village of Lake Zurich continues unabated, despite both State and Federal enforcement action. This problem does not require sophisticated nanotechnology, only a commitment by polluters to do the right thing.

i am confident that we will continue to make advances in water purification, and that, through collaboration with the broad stakeholder community, we can and will develop appropriate safeguards for nanotechnologies. The greater unknown is whether we, as a society, will have the political will to pay not only the price of sustaining today’s water infrastructure, but of ensuring the availability of clean water for generations to come.

Joseph Murro says:

I dont care what you call it – your still using a chemical to disinfect water.

The greatest technology for disinfecting water is already in use, and has been for over 20 years.
Its called ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION. It doesnt change any properties of the water in any way, no chemicals, no residue, NOTHING GOING IN YOUR LUNGS OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN YOUR BODY.

Sorry, rather have pure water than “nano” water.

Vignesh says:

excellent article..i can only hope tht the technology comes of good use, with no unfortunate side effects

Vignesh says:

and would anybody care to answer Mr.Murro’s question? whats the advantage of this technology over the already existant one employing UV radiations?

Lucy Garcia says:

Well, clearly UV doesn’t remove dangerous heavy metals and it might either break or cause the formation of harmful organics. Does anyone have data on this? Hope someone is looking very carefully at every filtraton technology…I certainly can’t do it.

Susan says:


I asked Richard Sustich why nanotechnology is better than UV radiation, and here is his response:

With regard to the question of nanotechnology vs. UV radiation, I wouldn’t necessarily characterize nanotechnology as “better” than UV radiation for disinfection. UV radiation is already a commercially available alternative to chlorine disinfection. But UV is energy intensive, and application in large-scale systems is sometimes considered cost prohibitive. The real potential of a nanotechnology approach lies in a systematic approach to understanding the interaction of contaminants (chemical and biological) with surfaces and catalysts at the molecular level, and the emerging ability to manipulate the aqueous environment at that level.

Thanks for commenting.


bob says:

its crap change it

Ahmed Ismail says:

dear sirs:- greetings from Egypt
i have invented a new POU ,affordable system for water purification that ideal to deal with arsenic water and designed to be use by rural poor
please visit http://spaces.msn.com/megahedpatentsdesigner
iam looking forwared to cooperate with seriously intrested organizations
thank you

Hi everyone, I am a Canadian scientist who owns anti-graffti technology patents in Canada, USA and in Europe…The first and most important aspect that I want to touch on when discussing WATER is that it is best to first create and invent any process that will FIRST allow you to save and protect any and all remaining drinking water left on planet earth…I have being working in this direction for the last ten years…Anyone interested in findout out more can easily contact me by first looking at my web site http://www.cleanstart.ca AND then can send me an e-mail at cleanstart@rogers.com…Again thank you for your time and patience…Please always remember that it is only with every little baby step from everyone concerned that our vital and limited drinking will be saved…Any and all help is most appreciated…

Miloni says:


I know nanotechnology works for water remediation, whether it is to remove heavy metals, or pesticides. Anyways i don’t doubt at all on what Susan has written coz a product is already developed in India and also would be commercialized in a month or so. But Susan I need some help from you, please can you reply on my email-id?

Nitin says:

The article is informative in all senses and the solution also lies in the co-ordinated efforts only which generally does not happen until the everyobe faces the crisis in front of it.. Thus, lets see who wins .. we as a people or our ignorance..:-)

i can be reached at nparasharatyahoodotcom
nitin parashar

Euripides Westfall says:

thanks for the useful info

Raymond Chee says:


I’d rather use nature’s water than ‘nano’ water. Yes nature’s (or something closest to nature’s water in terms of purity) is best provided the air is relatively uncontaminated as in very remote areas.

Nature is a big distiller but because earth’s atmosphere has been polluted in many places, we no longer have a reliable source of water from rain; hence we are forced to simulate rain. So a steamed distiller or still is by far the most ideal way, as one can get 99.99% purity or thereabouts right in the home or office. It’s the purest water one can find!

Despite the fact that it consumes energy to make the water, there is no adulteration of the water (e.g., nano particles to worry about) since we are just mimicking a natural physical process. Interested in finding out more? Refer to my website, http://FocusOnTotalHealth.net or email me at info@FocusOnTotalHealth.net. You will find that there’s nothing that beats distilled water.

Raymond Chee

CJasper says:

My name is Christian and I used to work at the NSF headquarters in Michigan as a lead project engineer for water technology.
First of all, Carbon filter only removes certain items out of the water. Yes it is effective if you start out with a relatively clean water source. Carbon is mainly just a taste/odor removal filter. Yes it does remove some chemicals as listed above but only at a certain level. That is why you see them on in brita pitcher to bottled water systems. They are made for the most basic of filtration needs.
Also, yes the NSF is the “almighty” but there are many filter companies out there with NSF approval sticker that make promises that they are not able to keep. I have personally seen many companies that have NSF approval for a certain characteristic but promise various other things using the same sticker.
The simple fact is that you have to do your own research on things before you buy it because there are always pros and cons. Usually people will only give you the pros so its up to you to verify and find out what the other side of the coin looks like.

Good Luck,

nazza01 says:


You can certainly see your enthusiasm in the work you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. All the time follow your heart.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The Scienceline Newsletter

Sign up for regular updates.