May 23, 2012
New Coating Gets Ketchup Out Lickety-Split
We’ve all been there: desperately trying to shake the last few drops of ketchup or salad dressing out of the bottle, becoming more and more frustrated as the condiment stubbornly sticks to the sides and refuses to come out.
A few months ago, a group of MIT scientists led by grad student Dave Smith decided to do something a little more productive than shaking. As shown in the video above, courtesy of Fast Company, they created a remarkably slippery substance called LiquiGlide that, when applied as a coating to the inside of bottles, sends viscous condiments like ketchup pouring out in no time.
The team reports that LiquiGlide is made entirely of nontoxic, FDA-approved substances and can easily be applied to the insides of bottles made of glass, plastic and other materials. At first glance, the project seems a little frivolous—are a few drops of ketchup really worth the time of such talented researchers?—but the possible benefits go beyond reducing the annoyance of sandwich-makers and french fry-eaters.
“Everyone is always like, ‘Why bottles? What’s the big deal?’” Smith told Fast Company. “But then you tell them the market for bottles—just the sauces alone is a $17 billion market.” The research team estimates that if all sauce bottles were coated with LiquiGlide, approximates one million tons of wasted condiments would be saved from the trash annually.
How does it work? Details on the proprietary substance are hard to come by, but Smith said, “it’s kind of a structured liquid—it’s rigid like a solid, but it’s lubricated like a liquid.” The research team initially worked on coatings to prevent ice formation on windshields and clogs in gas lines, then realized one of the super-slippery compounds would be ideal for this entirely different use.
Last week, the product won second place in MIT’s $100K Entrepreneurship Competition, and the team has already secured patents on the product. The researchers are reportedly in talks with several bottling and packaging companies, although it’s still early in the process.
Within a few years, though, we might have LiquiGlide-enhanced bottles of ketchup, mayonnaise and salad dressings on the dinner table. And why stop there? Might we see peanut butter, syrup, even honey cascading out of bottles and jars with ease? The possibilities are truly limitless.
Our advice? Get ready for this utopian future by watching a video of mayonnaise coming out of a LiquiGlide bottle:
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
18 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’m not eating anything the “bought and paid for” FDA says is good for me. They are owned by big AG corporations, Monsanto and the like. No Thanks. Just because it’s approved doesn’t mean it’s good for you.
Just say exactly what it’s made of. The article assures us that the substance is “non-toxic, FDA approved” and offers no further information. Is Liquiglide food based? If so, what food, how has it been altered, if at all? Is it God forbid, petroleum based? This article says nothing of any value about this new treatment for food packaging. It’s very disturbing
My first thought was, could it be sprayed onto buildings as a protective layer to deal with graffiti? I can see individuals and cities lining up around the block for that usage.
Noni
I can’t help but wonder, could it be applied to the lining on cloth baby diapers? LOL
As a chemist, I love it when orgnaizations claim that a product is ‘made from natural ingredients’. Because everything on this planet is made from natural ingredients. I mean, from where else would we get the ingredients, another universe?
I know that I can purposefully make known carcinogenic materials from natural ingredients. It should be a no-brainer to accidentally make both known and unknown carcinogenic materials from natural ingredients.
The issue is how natural ingredients are altered, and, maybe more importantly, what byproducts occured in the process.
This issue is complex. Determining and proving adverse health effects will always trail far far behind the excitment of creating new synthetic materials and new streams of profit.
5 comments – one humorous, one thoughtful and three negative. I for one think this is very cool, good for the consumer and good for the environment.
So it’s currently defined as non-toxic, but is it recyclable?
I’m a little cynical that manufacturers will line up for this product. The more consumers waste…the quicker they replace. But…then again, maybe it will slide out so fast…more wasteful accidents will happen.
I wonder how long it will be before one of the ingredients in the coating is discovered to cause cancer or otherwise be bad for your health.
Once again it is assumed the public in general are a collective group of uninformed and uneducated lemmings who are willing to follow these idiots right off the cliff.
Here is the bottom line; if it is created in a lab and is not found naturally in the environment I DO NOT want it touching my GMO food! Yes, that is sarcasm. Let’s stop this one before they begin coating baby bottles with it.
I can only imagine future generations shaking their heads in disbelief at the undertone of excitement this article attempts to make us feel. I know that I am shaking mine in disbelief.
I for one am all about knowing what’s in it so I can make my own decision whether or not I want to put that in my body.
What is important to me…..the freedom to choose for myself. And when I understand the “whatever”….,whether yay or nay, I will feel good about my decision, and THAT will not only benefit me but also my fellow man. My fellow man is as important as I am.
I hope this additive will be on the product label. I do not want to buy anything that has this substance lining the bottle. Our foods are too full of chemicals as it is.
As Wilson (5) pointed out, no one knows what will happen when certain non-toxic products are combined in a new way. By not wanting to let the public know the contents, I get very suspicious. When I eat it will it make my intestines slippery as well?
I think Kathy – 5/24 at 7:56pm got it right. Ketchup and Mayo manufacturers (as well as others) will want these bottles. Consumers will feel they are getting a better deal as nothing will be left in the bottle, but, most likely, in each usage they will pour out more than they did with the “sticky” bottles. Consumers feel better as they get all the product, retailers get quicker sales. I bet this is how it will play out…
Doug
From all these comments it seems that our government has about as much legitimacy to us as Mubarak’s had to the Egyptians.
Yes, this stirred up a vigorous and healthy debate. Good! Personally, I don’t find this particularly alarming, but of course I’d like to know more about it than this brief article. I think some commenters misinterpreted what was reported; this substance is evidently intended to coat the inside of a bottle, not added to the food. It’s conceivable that such a coating might contaminate the contents, but that shouldn’t be that difficult to determine, and my guess is that the FDA already examined that possibility. Disclaimer: I am an MIT graduate.
I’m with Laurie and Lisa. I DON’T WANT ARTIFICIAL INGREDIENTS ADDED TO MY FOOD OR MY FOOD CONTAINERS! There have been too many instances of the FDA and other government agencies siding with business and approving substances and practices that have not been adequately tested over long periods of time. For the sake of not having too shake a bottle or use a knife or spoon, I have yet another set of “safe, don’t worry about it” chemicals to pay for and ingest? No thank you.
I for one am far less interested in its application for food containers. Instead something like this would be nice to have on car windshields or even applied to a cars paint. Or how about clothing. The industrial uses for this are far reaching.