Debra asks that I note something for her —
“As far as coating the spores in resin, that is incorrect too. Though for obvious common sense reasons I won’t elaborate further, I’ll just point out that coating spores in resin would increase their particle size and mass, decreasing their ability to “float”.
She was referring to resin, not silica.
I’m the only one allowed to unintentionally distort her views.
BTW, although I haven’t asked her specifically, I’m sure she thinks US-based supporters of Al Qaeda were responsible for the anthrax mailings and she thinks Ed’s view that the FACTS establish a First Grader wrote the letter is really silly.
It despends on what you mean by coating with resin. Obviously a total encapsulation with an epoxy resin coating will do little to prevent clumping - and would likely ensure that the spores could never germinate.
The spores need to be coated with preferably a monolayer of silica nanoparticles. This can be done with or without a chemical binder. Without a chemical binder the silica nanoparticles stick to the surafce of the spores with van der Waals forces. If handled roughly, the bulk powder may lose some of the coating. However, if a chemical binder is used the silica nanoparticle swill stick with much stronger chemical bonds. An ideal chemical binder is a siloxane resin. Sush a resin has a silcon containg end that will bind to the silca, and the other end is an epoxy group that will bind to the organic surface of the spore. Using a binder like this will provide a much more robust silica coating - and the spore will still be able to germinate.
Don't we have to assume that she thinks this without having looked at the facts?
I'm signing off for today. My hours are 9-5. I'll be back tomorrow.