a process that can be used *on site* to render environmental toxins such as DDT and lindane harmless and convert them into valuable chemicals – a breakthrough for the *remediation of contaminated sites*Certainly what comes out of the machine will not be living.
It sounds like it could be used to decontaminate a waste stream, but how do you select out the offending materials from a site?? What magic breaks halogenated bonds while leaving others (which are easier to break) alone? And how does the solvent work?? Remember, teflon only became practical when they found a solvent for it--and it's the solvent that's the real problem. Teflon is non-reactive enough for the body to pretty much ignore, the solvent (which of course isn't 100% removed from the final product) has one reactive spot and is a problem. They've tried to hide behind a game of musical chairs, using "different" solvents, but the dangerous part of the molecule is unchanged as that's what's needed to do it's job. A longer or shorter inert tail makes it "different" from a legal standpoint, not meaningfully different from a toxicity standpoint.
Why am I thinking scam?
Take a bunch of contaminated soil, wash with DMSO, filter out soil, wash again, take all of that and electrolyze it.
Take the soil, dilute with lots of water and boil in a chamber with a fractionating column / distillation setup to reclaim the last of the DMSO.
I'd be surprised if this was in any way economical, but it's the cheapest way to permanently get rid of DDT, and the production of benzene and other hydrocarbons is a nice side benefit to reclaim some of the cost.
I've only ever personally used DMSO in chemistry labs, but Wikipedia [0] makes it look pretty safe: it claims that it has a higher LD50 than ethanol and that it's been FDA approved for human usage, so I wouldn't call it nasty. Now, I wouldn't really want to drink it because the side effects and taste sound pretty unpleasant, but it appears that it would be safe to do so.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide#Toxicity
At the scale of "washing tons of soil to remove DDT" it'd be quite unfortunate if something went wrong and tons of DDT tainted DMSO got dumped into the wild.
It seems scam adjacent because a high proportion of other stuff written in the same tone by the same types of people is a scam. The researchers don't write these puff pieces generally and the people that do spend the rest of their day writing "not technically a lie" type inflated corporate newspeak puffery that are basically "we're actually doing the customer a factor by charging more for less" tier lies.
It's also not unlikely that the experts involved provided a list of possible use cases and "making benzene from 3rd world dirt" was way down it and they had no idea the writer would lead with it.
There's a soil remediation project near my workplace (former railway depot). They've dug up several meters deep by now.
"SCS Foundation News and Announcements 2025"
https://www.chimia.ch/chimia/article/download/2025_885/2025_...
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are highly recalcitrant and toxic compounds that pose a profound threat to ecosystems across the world. One of the most notorious representatives of this class of chemicals is hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) – a known human carcinogen – a specific isomer of which was used as the insecticide Lindane.
...
In 2021, the groups of Morandi and Waldvogel disclosed a vicinal dihalide shuttle reaction under electrochemical conditions, with which HCH could be fully dechlorinated. In the present work, instead of transferring chlorine to another molecule, we sought to sequester it as an innocuous inorganic chloride salt, which is preferable for large-scale application.
Here's the free-to-read Accepted Manuscript version of the earlier 2021 publication:
"Merging shuttle reactions and paired electrolysis for reversible vicinal dihalogenations"
https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/chab/organ...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254251962...
More narrowly, Paul Stamets has worked a lot on mycroremediation — remediating with fungi.
…who is this? This guy [1]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Todd_(Canadian_biologist)
So... he invented the ocean?
In practice, there are multiple vats. The first stage has algae growing, which sequesters the heavy metals. The next stages follow other kinds of ecosystems, such as organisms from swamps. He will mix samples from multiple ecosystems that normally don’t mix so that some kind of novel, self-organizing ecosystem can form around the pollutant.
Then it is measuring and monitoring the contaminants. With the superfund site, he was tracking presence of the top ten pollutants on the EPA list. However, he also shows how people can use much simpler, non-industrial tests — using samples from say, uncontaminated lake water nearby and use a microscope to see if the water being treated will kill those microorganisms. This allows for remediation to be executed by people who don’t have access to labs, but still need a way to test their water.
A much simpler version of this that follows the same design principles is capable of local, onsite treatment of ordinary black water.
Consider if organism A consumes organism B in a symbiotic way. E.g., organism B makes berries.
Then, we engineer A to seek out and consume DDT, perhaps by making DDT delicious or fragrant to A.
Unexpected consequence: organism B evolves to produce berries that are absolutely redolent with DDT.
This might happen centuries later, due to the DDT-phillic genes outlasting the presence of artificial DDT in the environment, or it could happen much sooner, or it might never happen. Hard to know. “Life finds a way.”
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/do...
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly, she didn’t know why.
I'm having trouble finding the paper, can you link please?
https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/chab/organ...
I can't find the 2025 which this article is supposed to be improving upon that work?
Or are we just resurfacing 2021 work all together?
[Edit]
Yes that is the 2021 paper, but this new announcement is supposed to improve that process but I can't find any sort of paper other than the Spark Award 2025 announcement[0]
> The reactor used by the researchers consists of an undivided electrolysis cell in which dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is used as a solvent
They move the DDT from the soil to the solvent, which is the medium for electrolysis, not the soil itself.
Emphasis added
The problem has been that the DDT isn't really useful, so you're still left over with DDT tainted DMSO. Hence, most cleanup efforts focus on sequestration of soil.
The electrolysis step creates benzene and other hydrocarbons, making a useful byproduct. This means there's a better incentive to treat it rather than store it.
It is apparently used in some battery chemistries, so I'd expect losses to be pretty low if the equipment is set up well.
https://genius.com/Dead-kennedys-dmso-lyrics
I’m not sure what happens when you mix it with LSD. Again, try it and see.
After applying the ointment I got an upset stomach in minutes so yeah…. It was well absorbed.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3141840/
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/21230-diclofenac...
You could get DMSO and ketamine at the vet supply store back then in the 80s. I heard of people ingesting acid via DMSO in that time frame, but it could have been an urban legend. It was a horse area and DMSO was used with horses to get stuff deep into their legs or something like that.
Copying my comment on another subthread [0] here:
I've only ever personally used DMSO in chemistry labs, but Wikipedia [1] makes it look pretty safe: it claims that it has a higher LD50 than ethanol and that it's been FDA approved for human usage, so I wouldn't call it nasty. Now, I wouldn't really want to drink it because the side effects and taste sound pretty unpleasant, but it appears that it would be safe to do so.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46442253
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide#Toxicity
But yea, I overrated it's nastiness.
What's particularly interesting is the potential for on-site remediation. Traditional methods often involve excavating contaminated soil or pumping and treating groundwater indefinitely. If this can be scaled cost-effectively, it could transform cleanup efforts at industrial sites and military bases.
The key question is economic viability at scale. Energy costs for electrolysis can be significant, and PFAS contamination is often widespread. Would be curious to see lifecycle analysis comparing this to current remediation methods.
Technically it solves contamination problems too.
chrisweekly•1mo ago
buildsjets•1mo ago
zdragnar•1mo ago
> The reactor used by the researchers consists of an undivided electrolysis cell in which dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is used as a solvent
They remove the DDT from the soil into the solvent (itself quite unpleasant). From there, it's pretty easy to filter out the soil and clean it up. Add water and boil or freeze dry to extract it back out, preferably capturing it to be reused.
MangoToupe•1mo ago
"Cleaning" soil is an interesting concept. At what point does it just become dirt? Presumably some of the nutrients will remain, but it seems like this would sterilize it.
Dirt still has use, of course, but soil is expensive to produce for a reason.
zdragnar•1mo ago
Considering the existing DDT contamination, ending up with dirt that needs to be fortified with compost is hardly the worst trade-off.
MangoToupe•1mo ago
I would definitely bet against this if I could. Soil is far more potent than DDT can harm.
zdragnar•1mo ago
DDT, like organic mercury compounds, bioaccumulates up the food chain. Contaminated soil is sequestered to prevent it from contaminating insects and animals and then humans.
Hence, the trade-off: DDT in the ecosystem, or killing soil and rebuilding it with compost and time.
MangoToupe•1mo ago
modo_mario•1mo ago
zdragnar•1mo ago
Rather, it is a more permanent solution compared to sequestration, where the benzene production offsets the cost.
If, as they plan, it can be done on-site, that would also eliminate transporting the soil and avoiding accidentally spreading it elsewhere, which is appealing as well.
Sanitary landfills (the sort that prevent seepage) are not exactly cheap either, and pose an ongoing risk in that the DDT is always there, waiting to get back out.
guenthert•1mo ago