New plasma device turns air into ammonia, ends the need for fossil fuels
Ammonia, a key ingredient in fertilizers, supports nearly half of global food production. Traditionally, its production requires high heat, high pressure, and fossil fuels, making it one of the most emissions-intensive chemical processes in the world.
The Sydney team's approach uses plasma to excite nitrogen and oxygen in the air, then converts those molecules into ammonia gas through a membrane-based electrolyzer.
The study outlines how this two-step method avoids several inefficiencies of previous attempts. Most other labs had only managed to produce ammonia in liquid form, ammonium, which requires more processing to become usable gas. The new method bypasses that step.
'In this research we've successfully developed a method that allows air to be converted to ammonia in its gaseous form using electricity,' said Professor PJ Cullen, lead researcher from the University of Sydney's School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. 'A huge step towards our goals.'
The development also opens the door to low-cost, scalable, and decentralized production of green ammonia, especially important for rural or off-grid locations.
'For the past decade, the global scientific community, including our lab, has wanted to uncover a more sustainable way to produce ammonia that doesn't rely on fossil fuels,' said Cullen.
Ammonia is gaining attention not just in agriculture but also in the energy sector. It contains three hydrogen atoms, making it an efficient way to store and transport hydrogen. Industry bodies are already exploring methods to extract hydrogen from ammonia by 'cracking' the molecules apart.
Ammonia's carbon-free profile also makes it a strong contender for future clean fuels. The shipping industry, which is responsible for about 3% of global emissions, is especially interested.
Cullen's team has worked on green ammonia technologies for six years. Their new setup centers on the membrane-based electrolyzer, a compact silver box where the final conversion occurs.
During the Haber-Bosch process, ammonia is produced by combining nitrogen and hydrogen gases under intense heat and pressure. Cullen's process uses plasma to energize air molecules and pass them through the electrolyzer to create ammonia directly.
'This new approach is a two-step process, namely combining plasma and electrolysis,' Cullen explained. 'We have already made the plasma component viable in terms of energy efficiency and scalability.'
However, he added, 'To create a more complete solution to a sustainable ammonia productive, we need to push the energy efficiency of the electrolyzer component.'
With ammonia production set to increase globally, this research could redefine how the world approaches one of its most important chemicals.
The study is published in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hope For Healthy Hearts: Enzyme Breakthrough Could Tame Cholesterol
Scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington have identified a new enzyme that can help control cholesterol levels. The enzyme discovered by the researchers can be shut off, effectively helping the body maintain healthy cholesterol levels. The breakthrough development could pave the way for new treatments to help the millions of Americans with elevated cholesterol levels. Subhrangsu S. Mandal, lead author of a new study and professor of chemistry at UT Arlington, said the team found that by blocking the enzyme IDO1, inflammation within immune cells called macrophages could be controlled. 'Inflammation is linked to so many conditions… By better understanding IDO1 and how to block it, we have the potential to better control inflammation and restore proper cholesterol processing, stopping many of these diseases in their tracks,' said Mandal, per UTA. While some inflammation is beneficial, when it becomes abnormal due to triggers such as stress or injury, it can damage cells, disrupt normal functions, and even increase the risk of disease. The researchers found that the enzyme IDO1 is active during inflammation. This produces a substance called kynurenine, which disrupts the macrophages' ability to process cholesterol effectively. However, when IDO1 is blocked, macrophages regain their ability to absorb cholesterol. Moreover, the team found that another enzyme that can drive inflammation, nitric oxide synthases (NOS), worsens the effects of IDO1. Blocking NOS, the team theorizes, could provide another avenue for controlling information-linked cholesterol problems. 'These findings are important because we know too much cholesterol buildup in macrophages can lead to clogged arteries, heart disease and a host of other illnesses,' Mandal said. 'Understanding how to prevent the inflammation affecting cholesterol regulation could lead to new treatments for conditions like heart disease, diabetes, cancer and others.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
That distinctive springtime smell: Asparagus pee
Along with many other delights, springtime brings the beginning of the asparagus growing season. Regardless of whether you prefer the green, purple or white variety, asparagus provides a rich source of vitamins and minerals, and its consumption as part of a healthy diet may reduce risk of cancer and cardiovascular-related diseases. Despite the nutritional benefits of asparagus, many are opposed to eating the vegetable due to its pungent aftereffects. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1781, 'A few stems of asparagus eaten, shall give our urine a disagreable odour.' This odor has become so well known that post-consumption urine is now often referred to as 'asparagus pee.' Scientists believe the odor in question is due to two chemicals: methanethiol and S-methyl thioester. When enzymes in the human digestive tract break down the asparagusic acid that's naturally present in the vegetable, these volatile compounds are created. When voided from the body, they become foul-smelling gas, wafting up from your asparagus pee. And just because you don't smell it doesn't mean you're not making it. Two studies have shown that people who are unable to smell the odor in their own urine also don't detect it in the urine of known producers. Yes, volunteers sniffed samples of other people's asparagus pee. Though most everyone probably produces the scent to some degree, it seems not everyone's noses pick up on it. In fact, a study my colleagues and I conducted in 2017 found that only 40 percent of those surveyed reported detecting the odor in their urine. A lower proportion of women were able to detect the odor, compared to men, despite women being thought to have a more keen sense of smell. We asked almost 7,000 participants from two large cohort studies to respond to the prompt 'After eating asparagus, you notice a strong characteristic odor in your urine.' By linking the questionnaire data with genetic data, we were able to show that the ability to smell or not to smell depends on a person's genetic makeup. Hundreds of variants in the DNA sequence across multiple genes involved in sense of smell are strongly associated with the ability to detect asparagus metabolites in urine. Asparagus isn't the only food that has genetically linked controversial smell or taste effects. Some people avoid eating cilantro because they claim it has a 'soapy' aftertaste. A study using data from almost 30,000 users of 23andMe found genetic variants in olfactory receptors linked to people's perception of this adverse taste. Maybe you can conduct your own survey at the next family meal that includes a platter of asparagus – or soon after. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sarah Coseo Markt, Harvard University Read more: Can you pass this smell test? Oral nicotine pouches deliver lower levels of toxic substances than smoking – but that doesn't mean they're safe Don't believe everything you hear about pesticides on fruits and vegetables Sarah Coseo Markt receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.
Fox News
8 hours ago
- Fox News
How sensationalized headlines about 'brain plastic' are undermining trust in safe, sustainable materials
Earlier this year, a terrifying claim swept headlines and social media: "You have a spoon's worth of plastic in your brain." The warning, based on a study published in Nature Medicine, set off a cultural firestorm, dominating news cycles, TikToks and dinner table conversations. It was the kind of phrase designed to go viral, and it did. But here's what didn't go viral: the follow-up. Experts later flagged the study for a critical flaw: To quantify microplastics in samples, the study relied on equipment with limitations in distinguishing plastics from other materials, leading to potential false positives. An independent expert noted: "The method is lauded for its ability to detect smaller micro- and nanoplastics than other methods can, but it will give you a lot of false positives if you do not adequately remove biological material from the sample. Most of the presumed plastic they found is polyethylene, which to me really indicates that they didn't really clean up their samples properly." The nuance, though important, didn't make the headlines. This highlights a broader issue: there's no globally standardized methods for the collection, detection and quantification of microplastics. Some microplastics studies may fail to identify whether the particle is a mineral, an organic material or something else, yet still misidentify them and claim they are microplastics. And without standardized methodologies for identifying and quantifying the different types of particles, it is difficult to generate reliable data and assess their true impact. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states, "While there are many studies on microplastics in food, the current state of science is limited in its ability to inform regulatory risk assessment… due to several factors, including a continued lack of standardized definitions, reference materials, sample collection and preparation procedures, and appropriate quality controls, to name a few." Yet recent coverage has prioritized drama over scientific nuance, creating confusion rather than clarity. Let's be clear: microplastics are real. Everyday life, from tire dust to synthetic fibers, produces these particles. They're in the environment and potentially our bodies. But presence alone doesn't constitute a crisis. The real question is what this means for human health and how to respond responsibly. The FDA has made clear that "current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health." When we treat preliminary research as settled science – or worse, viral clickbait – we lose the ability to make smart decisions. This is particularly true in the case of materials like PET, the plastic used in food packaging, water bottles and medical supplies. PET is among the safest, most rigorously tested plastics, approved globally by regulators including the FDA and EFSA. Why is this misinformation dangerous? Because it undermines trust in safe and sustainable materials like PET, which is both lightweight and recyclable. According to life cycle assessments (LCA), a PET bottle produces significantly lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than alternative containers like glass bottles or aluminum cans, and requires less energy to produce. It enables safe hydration, reduces food waste and makes modern healthcare possible. Yet consumers increasingly question PET, not because science changed, but because headlines did. That disconnect carries real-world consequences. This is exactly why it is so important for our regulatory agencies to step up and address the lack of standardization in microplastics research and to develop methods and standards that allow for consistent and comparable results in research. Only then will we be able to have a more disciplined public conversation around microplastics that we can be confident is based on dependable evidence, and which stops the confusion of comparing apples to oranges. None of this is to dismiss the broader challenge of plastic pollution. Our industry – and society – must invest in better systems: smarter product design, stronger recycling infrastructure and more rigorous scientific research. But meaningful progress starts with clarity, not confusion. The public deserves facts. Not just headlines.
