Seattle’s biotechnology scene is making global headlines, producing three Nobel Prize winners in just two years — a reflection of the region’s growing influence in scientific innovation.
The 2024 Chemistry Nobel: David Baker
David Baker, a professor at the University of Washington and director of the Institute for Protein Design, earned the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his revolutionary work on protein structure prediction and engineering.
His research enables scientists to design custom proteins that can serve as advanced medicines, sustainable materials, and catalysts for cleaner technology. Baker’s contributions have not only advanced our understanding of molecular biology but have also inspired a new wave of biotech startups and collaborations worldwide.
The 2025 Medicine Nobel: Mary Brunkow and Fred Ramsdell
The 2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Mary Brunkow of the Institute for Systems Biology and Fred Ramsdell of Sonoma Biotherapeutics, along with Japan’s Shimon Sakaguchi.
Their landmark research on regulatory T cells (Tregs) revealed how the immune system maintains balance by preventing the body from attacking itself — a discovery that transformed modern immunology. This work has opened doors to new therapies for autoimmune diseases, organ transplantation, and cancer immunotherapy.
A Global Spotlight on Seattle’s Biotech Ecosystem
These back-to-back Nobel honors underscore the strength of Seattle’s biotechnology ecosystem — a thriving network of research institutions, biotech startups, and innovation hubs that continue to push scientific boundaries.
Seattle’s recent Nobel Prize winners are more than individual achievements — they represent a collective leap forward for biotechnology and medical science. The city’s momentum demonstrates how collaboration and visionary research can redefine what’s possible in human health and discovery.
Produced water, a major byproduct of oil and gas extraction, contains hydrocarbons, salts, metals, and chemicals, with chloride and sodium being most prevalent. The water-to-oil ratio can range from 3 to 10, depending on the well. Managing this complex wastewater is challenging, driving the use of membrane technologies that efficiently meet discharge and reuse standards compared to conventional methods.
Produced water composition varies based on the reservoir and production method. Common traits include high salinity, oil and grease, suspended solids, dissolved organics, and residual chemicals. Traditional treatments often fail to meet regulations or reuse goals, while membrane systems offer compact, efficient, and customizable solutions.
Suitable Membrane Technologies
Membrane technologies can target specific contaminants at different treatment stages. The selection of membrane type and material plays a critical role in the process of efficiency and performance.
Microfiltration (MF) and Ultrafiltration (UF)
These membranes act as pretreatment to remove suspended solids, oil, and colloids, reducing turbidity and protecting downstream systems. PES, PVDF, and ceramic membranes are ideal for their fouling resistance, though fouling from oil and surfactants remains a challenge mitigated through optimization or cleaning. Laboratory skid systems are often used to refine these conditions.
NF membranes remove dissolved organics, heavy metals, and divalent ions while allowing some monovalent salts through, reducing TDS and COD efficiently at lower pressures than RO. Although fouling is an issue, Ceramic NF Membranes offer exceptional durability, chemical resistance, and long-term cost-effectiveness in harsh environments.
RO offer high rejection of salt and dissolved organics, producing permeate suitable for discharge or high-value reuse applications. However, due to the high salinity of produced water, RO is often deployed in combination with pretreatment and scaling control measures to ensure long-term performance. It is not recommended unless the permeate is designed to be used for potable applications due to the high cost and energy needed.
Forward Osmosis (FO) and Membrane Distillation (MD)
FO utilizes osmotic pressure differentials to drive water transport, effectively removing oil, suspended solids, and dissolved contaminants with minimal energy consumption and fouling. Its performance in high-salinity environments is favorable, though draw solution regeneration remains a key limitation; Benchtop Filtration Systems are ideal for evaluating suitable draw solutes.
MD is a thermally driven process that uses a hydrophobic membrane to allow only vapor transport, leaving non-volatile contaminants behind. Its performance is largely unaffected by feed salinity, making it ideal for hypersaline produced waters, although oil-induced membrane wetting can affect long-term stability and flux.
At Sterlitech, we support researchers and engineers working on produced water treatment by offering a wide range of flat sheet membranes and spiral-wound elements. Our solutions enable testing under realistic operating conditions, helping customers identify the most effective treatment configurations for their specific produced water challenges.
Next month, learn about testing systems suitable for produced water treatment in part 2.
Still have questions? Ask an Expert to learn more about our membrane testing options for produced water treatment.
References
[1] H. D. Dawoud, H. Saleem, N. A. Alnuaimi, and S. J. Zaidi, “Characterization and treatment technologies applied for produced water in Qatar,” Water, vol. 13, no. 24, p. 3573, Dec. 2021. doi:10.3390/w13243573
[2] W. Mackenzie, “Permian produced water: slowly extinguishing a roaring basin?,” Wood Mackenzie, Jun. 11, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/permian-produced-water/
[3] A. Fakhru’l-Razi et al., “Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 170, no. 2–3, pp. 530–551, Oct. 2009. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.05.044
[4] Jafarinejad, S., & Esfahani, M. R. (2021). A review on the nanofiltration process for treating wastewaters from the petroleum industry. Separations, 8(11), 206. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations8110206
Biodiversity is a key indicator of environmental health. How dispersed and varied species are in each ecosystem is a good way for scientists to map different environmental factors that signal how an ecosystem reacts to changes brought about by human activity, climate change, or invasive species1.
The main challenge in evaluating biodiversity lies in the time-consuming and labor-intensive process of sampling the many interacting populations of plants, animals, and other organisms within an ecosystem.
Scientists have developed several practical ways to collect environmental DNA (eDNA) that reveal a complete picture of biodiversity. A single sample can now reveal the biodiversity of an entire ecosystem, with methods involving the collection of permafrost, soil, air, and aquatic samples, from which eDNA is captured through filtration2.
Filtration of these samples use high binding membrane materials such as MCE Sterile Membrane Filters and Glass Fiber Membrane Filters high binding membranes retain DNA within the membrane depth; these bound DNA samples can then be preserved or extracted on-site and analyzed to screen DNA fragments and identify species biodiversity from the sample.
Image 1. DNA is trapped within the membrane while the water sample passes freely through the membrane pores
High binding materials have an inherent affinity to biomolecules that cause these molecules to adhere to the membrane and not be flushed during subsequent filtration steps. DNA can be recovered by post-filtration for analysis.
Sampling eDNA using Microfiltration
A straightforward technique in sampling [KM1] eDNA is by collecting the environmental sample (air, soil, water) from the source and filtering these materials through a Glass Fiber or MCE Membrane. Prefiltration is also recommended for samples that contain high particle load to ensure that the DNA samples recovered from the environment will be free from unwanted particles. The membranes will then be recovered using DNA extraction kits for post-filtration analysis.
eDNA recovery is streamlined by using Sterlitech Membrane Filters and Vacuum Filtration Assembly.
References:
1. Cortez, T.; Torres, A.; Guimarães, M.; Pinheiro, H.; Cabral, M.; Zielinsky, G.; Pereira, C.; de Castro, G.; Guerreiro, L.; Americo, J.; et al. Insights into the Representativeness of Biodiversity Assessment in Large Reservoir through eDNA Metabarcoding. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0314210
2. Ding L, Duan X, Liu M, Chen D, Huang X, Wang D, Ma B, Fu S, Zhong L. Passive eDNA Sampling Characterizes Fish Community Assembly in the Lancang River of Yunnan, China. Biology. 2025; 14(8):1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14081080
