On Nanotechnology, Water and Development - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Hilie, T, M. Munasinghe, M. Hlope, and Y. Deraniyagala, Nanotechnology, Water and Development, Meridian Institute: Global Dialogue on Nanotechnology and the Poor, 2006 http://www.merid.org/nano/waterpaper/NanoWaterPaperFinal.pdf

This report is the best yet on applications.

I have advocated applications in three areas to get the public on board: medicine, water, and energy and I feel this report is well-timed and a major contribution to the debate on all things nano.

It begins with a rich data set on water associated development issues, such as "...in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia respectively, some 769,000 and 683,000 children under five years of age died annually from diarrheal disease in 2000-2003" (p. 9).

The second chapter examines a study involving sari cloth to reduce cholera contamination in Bangladesh. While I am less convinced that this section opens questions that need to be examined in applying nanomaterials as a water treatment strategy, it is a good read and informative.

The chapter ends (p. 18) with "...similar materials perhaps suitably treated or impregnated with nanotechnology-based methods, could filter more effectively and thereby increase the health benefits."

This leads us to chapter 3: Nanotechnology and Water. There follows an informed discussion on nanofiltration membrane technology, carbon nanotube filters, some reclamation technologies, esp. associated with waste water treatment, and sensors.There is a nearly complete review of technologies (p. 21). Filmtec's technology was used in the South African study. There is a break review of attapulgite clays zeolites and nanoporous polymers as well. The technology used in the study was portable (p. 23).

My only complaint is that the report goes into toxicology (pp. 29-33) and does a rather shallow job at it but that is not the focus of the report.

I enjoyed the observation that "the physical properties of water of smell, taste, and color or appearance are most crucial in assessing water quality than chemical and microbial properties in rural communities" (p. 34 and 120f). I am sure there results are not exclusive to rural areas and they suggest there are heuristics at work which would problematize toxicological communication algorithms.

The report makes some strong conclusions on capacity building (p. 34), actually they are coded as requirements: (1) a comprehensive informative educational program on methodologies and benefits of water treatment and (2) involving the community in all stages of the project, e.g., training operators to instill community ownership and to reduce vandalism and theft.

Chapter 4 reviews the case study and reports the results which were promising.