May 29, 2015

Spotlight: Nanoceram-PAC Water Filter

Barbara Miracle | 1/1/2008

Nanoceram-PAC Water Filter

» Who came up with it? Fred Tepper, Argonide Corp., Sanford

» What is it? This next-generation water filter removes contaminants (such as chlorine, taste and odor) as well as bacteria and viruses. The filter consists of mesh screen made of tiny aluminum fibers that are 40,000 times thinner than a human hair. A fine carbon powder, which has a negative electrical charge, adheres to the screen, which has a positive electrical charge. The filter snags even the most minute contaminants.

»Who uses it? Right now, Argonide’s focus is the industrial market. Companies such as Toyota use the Nanoceram-PAC to remove contaminants in wastewater before putting the water through reverse osmosis filters (which are easily clogged by contaminants) and reusing it in the plant. “There’s a looming crisis in water conservation,” says Tepper.


An electron microscope captured this image. The rock-like pieces are particles of powdered activated carbon that adhere to the screen in the filter and catch contaminants.
[Photo: R. Ristau Univ. of Conn]

» Cost: $75 to $150 for industrial use. Residential applications are not yet on the market, but Tepper says filters to purify well water might cost as little as $20.


Tags: North Central

Digital Access

DIRECT DIGITAL ACCESS
Add digital to your current subscription, purchase a single digital issue, or start a new subscription to Florida Trend.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
An overview of the features and articles in this month's issue of Florida Trend.

ACCESS THIS ISSUE »

Florida Business News

Florida Trend Video Pick

Atlantic Canyons: Pathways to the Abyss
Atlantic Canyons: Pathways to the Abyss

Pathways to the Abyss showcases deepwater marine habitats of two mid-Atlantic Canyons located 100 miles offshore.

Earlier Videos | Viewpoints@FloridaTrend

Ballot Box

Are you OK with opening oil drilling off both Florida coasts?

  • Yes
  • Yes, but only as long as drilling would stay 50 miles offshore
  • No, we should keep the current ban of at least 125 miles offshore in place

See Results

Ballot Box
Subscribe